New CBA Appears Imminent

[RiverDog]

...comes from ESPN's Adam Schefter, who reports that the NFL management council, representing the owners, and the NFLPA, representing the players, both expect the new CBA to be ratified in the coming weeks.

Good news in that the two sides are ahead of the curve as the current CBA doesn't expire until after the 2020 season. It looks like we won't have to go through a work stoppage.

Included in the proposal is the previously discussed 17 game regular season schedule. Although the details of the extra game haven't been announced, one would have to assume that it would involve the international series which currently has one of the participating teams surrendering a home game. Other suggestions include playing games at neutral sites in markets/states not served by an NFL team.

Preseason games cut from 4 to 3. There has been some discussions of allowing teams to conduct intra squad scrimmages.

Playoffs expanded from 12 to 14 teams with just one team per conference receiving a first round bye. That means there would be 6 games on Wild Card Weekend, with the #2 seed hosting the #7 seed, #3 hosting #6, and #4 hosting #5. The divisional round would still have 4 games with the #1 seed hosting the lowest remaining team.

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/ ... yM34jQrViE

I haven't seen any discussion as to the dates the expanded regular season would start (Labor Day weekend?). There's also been some discussion about adding a 2nd bye week and push the start of the playoffs back into the 2nd weekend of January and with it, the Super Bowl to mid February.

Information I've seen indicates that these changes wouldn't take effect until the 2022 season.

There also hasn't been a lot posted as to any proposed financial changes to the salary cap, free agency, guaranteed player minimums, and so forth, but with the added revenue from the 17th regular season game and 2 extra playoff games, one would have to assume that player salaries and the salary cap would get a significant bump.

Comments?

[c_hawkbob]

This is great news! I had fully expected a work stoppage over this CBA. As for the financials, the players percentage of total revenue is to increase from 47 to 48% of in the first year then 48.5%.

[RiverDog]

This is great news! I had fully expected a work stoppage over this CBA. As for the financials, the players percentage of total revenue is to increase from 47 to 48% of in the first year then 48.5%.

I heard some talk about the financial details on SiriusXM, but couldn't recall them. Thanks for tossing that in!

The other thing I left out is that there's going to be some sort of roster expansion to mitigate the effects of a longer season, but I'm not sure about the details.

And yes, it's great news! No one wins in a strike/lockout, least of all us fans. Kudos to both sides for getting on top of it early, if it indeed gets done.

[NorthHawk]

That extra game is going to be hard for some of the older vets. It's going to shorten some careers as well.
Giving up a pre-season game won't help much because they don't play a lot then anyway. I hope they get
another bye week for teams to recover. I think that is needed anyway, but becomes more important now.

[RiverDog]

That extra game is going to be hard for some of the older vets. It's going to shorten some careers as well.
Giving up a pre-season game won't help much because they don't play a lot then anyway. I hope they get
another bye week for teams to recover. I think that is needed anyway, but becomes more important now.

I think I heard where the 2nd bye is part of the proposed 17 game schedule, but I wouldn't bank on it. There was a discussion about moving the start of the playoffs back to the 2nd Sunday in January and the Super Bowl to the 3rd Sunday in February.

[RiverDog]

It may not be as imminent as we thought. If the tweets from players in this article are any indication, they seem to be against the 17 game schedule:

Houston Texans star JJ Watt said he is a "hard no" on the the proposed CBA and San Francisco 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman has encouraged him, as well as others, to take leadership and voice their opinions. The players have expressed they want to see a more even distribution of the money and benefits and want longer health coverage in retirement.

Some have proposed an extra bye week and want more focus on their safety rather than extra games.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/j-j- ... IfNjQfoE9A

I guess the extra bye week isn't in the proposal as I had thought.

[jshawaii22]

The older players (who have big $$$ contracts) simply don't need or want the 17th game... but all the younger and 2nd levels will, as it increases the pool of $$$ over the next "X" number of years, exactly what they want. Far more 2nd / 3rd level players and they all get ONE vote, if it goes to the general union membership. NFL vs NFLPA usually follows "union 101" negotiations, with the threat of the lockout looming. Hey, at least they have the XFL players as replacements this time...

The NFLPA Union management, as is A-Typical, is older, more established, and in many cases retired and the fact that the proposed contract vote to put it to the general union membership 'only lost' 6-5 shows that the offer is pretty damn good. I've sat there before. I've been 'management' over a much, much smaller group and it's not a fun place to be. Players like Watt don't do anything positive and if they start banging tables and screaming at the negotiation table, the other side usually walks out. Lucky he's not a player rep, only a 'voice'.
Sherman has sure become more of a 'statesman' the last year. I always felt he's gearing up for a political career after football. Image is everything, even if you 'lose' and the players never lose, they just don't get as much as they want. Big difference!

On management side, you have the new LA multi-billion $$$ stadium AND my new favorite stadium in Las Vegas and there is not even a minuscule chance that there isn't football next year. The owners gave the money ranch away, but kept the commish's power in place.

That's why it's called a negotiation.

[RiverDog]

The older players (who have big $$$ contracts) simply don't need or want the 17th game... but all the younger and 2nd levels will, as it increases the pool of $$$ over the next "X" number of years, exactly what they want. Far more 2nd / 3rd level players and they all get ONE vote, if it goes to the general union membership. NFL vs NFLPA usually follows "union 101" negotiations, with the threat of the lockout looming. Hey, at least they have the XFL players as replacements this time...

The NFLPA Union management, as is A-Typical, is older, more established, and in many cases retired and the fact that the proposed contract vote to put it to the general union membership 'only lost' 6-5 shows that the offer is pretty damn good. I've sat there before. I've been 'management' over a much, much smaller group and it's not a fun place to be. Players like Watt don't do anything positive and if they start banging tables and screaming at the negotiation table, the other side usually walks out. Lucky he's not a player rep, only a 'voice'.
Sherman has sure become more of a 'statesman' the last year. I always felt he's gearing up for a political career after football. Image is everything, even if you 'lose' and the players never lose, they just don't get as much as they want. Big difference!

On management side, you have the new LA multi-billion $$$ stadium AND my new favorite stadium in Las Vegas and there is not even a minuscule chance that there isn't football next year. The owners gave the money ranch away, but kept the commish's power in place.

That's why it's called a negotiation.

Good point about older vs. younger players. The other part of that equation is that 2nd and 3rd year players are more likely to be 'on the bubble', here today and gone tomorrow, and are more likely to take the money and run. And you're right about the pressure on management to avoid a work stoppage. The same is true on the player's side, particularly the younger players that are well aware of the average length of a career in the NFL. No one wins in a strike.

However, if you take a look at those tweets, there's a wide range of players commenting, almost all negative. So who knows. I assume that they vote via private ballot, in which case the younger players would be more inclined to vote their hearts rather than follow the lead of veterans like Watt and Sherman. That's not how votes used to be taken in contract ratifications, and one of the reasons why labor unions had so much power back in the Jimmy Hoffa years. Votes were cast in smoke filled union halls by a raising of hands or voice vote with union thugs patrolling the room. Anyone opposing what the union wanted literally did so at their own risk.

[NorthHawk]

We won't really know the impact of the new CBA until it's finalized and available to the public.
I wonder if they are going to increase the Cap by 1/16 over and above the normal Cap increase
to accommodate the cost of the extra game? Will there be a clause in it to permit additional bonuses
for players contracts ie. arbitrarily permitting the addition of a bonus for the extra game? As it sounds,
it's only $250,000 from what I've heard which is a lesser amount for the top paid players on a per game
pay check basis.
That extra game could throw some sand in the Vaseline come contract time and anger some players who
think they are underpaid if they play an extra game. For instance a player making $20 million/yr gets paid
$1.25 million per game. If they get paid $250,000 they are then taking a million dollar hit. That will be
the mind set for agents and some players.

[obiken]

I think an extra game is stupid. IF the players want the new format for the playoffs, fine. I think the best team usually wins anyway.

[c_hawkbob]

We won't really know the impact of the new CBA until it's finalized and available to the public.
I wonder if they are going to increase the Cap by 1/16 over and above the normal Cap increase
to accommodate the cost of the extra game? Will there be a clause in it to permit additional bonuses
for players contracts ie. arbitrarily permitting the addition of a bonus for the extra game? As it sounds,
it's only $250,000 from what I've heard which is a lesser amount for the top paid players on a per game
pay check basis.
That extra game could throw some sand in the Vaseline come contract time and anger some players who
think they are underpaid if they play an extra game. For instance a player making $20 million/yr gets paid
$1.25 million per game. If they get paid $250,000 they are then taking a million dollar hit. That will be
the mind set for agents and some players.

The cap is based on the player's percentage of total revenues so of course an extra game's revenue is going to see an increase in salary cap. That coupled with the increase from 47% to 48-48.5% slice of the pie is the big incentive for the players to accept this offer.

[NorthHawk]

That makes sense, Bob.
However, there was a story about capping the game checks at $250,000 which could lead to
a lot of unrest for some players who are higher paid than most. It can upset the chemistry
for some teams. The article suggests that players can negotiate more per game for the
extra game, it would mean opening up the contract which teams might not want to do.

Edit:
Link to article:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... for-stars/

[c_hawkbob]

There's no way on God's green earth that this doesn't pass (the full player's vote)

-- Mike Golik on the new CBA after it was approved by the player reps last night.

The biggest thing it's got going for it is that the bottom 50% of the pay scale "made out like bandits".

[NorthHawk]

-- Mike Golik on the new CBA after it was approved by the player reps last night.

The biggest thing it's got going for it is that the bottom 50% of the pay scale "made out like bandits".

That's a good thing as those players are often the "glue" that teams need to be successful. Role players are
key even if they don't get much press or credit.

[RiverDog]

-- Mike Golik on the new CBA after it was approved by the player reps last night.

The biggest thing it's got going for it is that the bottom 50% of the pay scale "made out like bandits".

Excellent! And hooray for the little guy!

One of my biggest complaints about the CBA has been in relation to new stadium construction. I'd like to see the players and owners each contribute roughly 5% of their piece of the revenue pie to a fund that would finance new stadium construction and improvements rather than blackmailing taxpayers. There's no reason why an entity as profitable as the NFL should require taxpayers to pay for their venues of which they make millions off of.

[c_hawkbob]

That's a good thing as those players are often the "glue" that teams need to be successful. Role players are
key even if they don't get much press or credit.

A smart way to go by ownership too ... the thresholds are 75% of owners, 66% of player reps and a simple majority of players. By juicing up the bottom half of the proposal they made objections by stars and superstars irrelevant once it passed the player reps. Those bottom half of the roster types are all this thing needs to push through.

[NorthHawk]

Good point with all those players at the middle to bottom having shorter careers, it makes it a much
better contract for maximizing their compensation. I can't blame any one of them for voting for it
if it makes their life better, but teams will have to deal with the malcontents who think they are
more important than the team. They do now, anyway but this might be another reason for the
prima donna's to whine.

[jshawaii22]

One of my biggest complaints about the CBA has been in relation to new stadium construction. I'd like to see the players and owners each contribute roughly 5% of their piece of the revenue pie to a fund that would finance new stadium construction and improvements rather than blackmailing taxpayers. There's no reason why an entity as profitable as the NFL should require taxpayers to pay for their venues of which they make millions off of.

RD, of the recent new stadiums, I understand that Dallas was 100% private funding and so is LA's stadium. Las Vegas taxed tourists for the 40% ($700m) and as the economy has boomed, so has the $$$ that the tax has generated. "Not a penny from residents" has been the mantra since the first time we heard about it.

Then you have St. Louis and San Diego, both of which lost their team over refusals of the politicians / citizens to pay for the stadium, and Jacksonville and a couple others that want the taxpayers to pay for upgrades and the city's refusing, so I think the NFL got the message.

So, while your comment is correct, it's also 10 years old. I don't see anything like the Seahawks stadium being built with taxpayer's funds again (unless it's put to a vote - like San Diego, where it soundly failed)

[Aseahawkfan]

They want those guaranteed contracts. I think they should do that for contracts under a certain amount. Some of these smaller players that lay it on the line and get hurt, then get let go with injury settlements should get their money. Not their fault they were injured. In a sport this violent at least a lot of the smaller contracts should be guaranteed.

[RiverDog]

RD, of the recent new stadiums, I understand that Dallas was 100% private funding and so is LA's stadium. Las Vegas taxed tourists for the 40% ($700m) and as the economy has boomed, so has the $$$ that the tax has generated. "Not a penny from residents" has been the mantra since the first time we heard about it.

Then you have St. Louis and San Diego, both of which lost their team over refusals of the politicians / citizens to pay for the stadium, and Jacksonville and a couple others that want the taxpayers to pay for upgrades and the city's refusing, so I think the NFL got the message.

So, while your comment is correct, it's also 10 years old. I don't see anything like the Seahawks stadium being built with taxpayer's funds again (unless it's put to a vote - like San Diego, where it soundly failed)

Much of a team's ability to fund stadiums w/o public financing depends on whether or not they are in a big market with a large corporate presence meaning that the value of things like stadium naming rights is greater and their ability to sell suites and luxury boxes, etc. Seattle is a mid market team with a lot of corporate money floating around so perhaps they will be able to finance any capital improvements w/o public financing, but cities like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Charlette, and Jacksonville most likely won't. Minneapolis, for example, recently paid $348M in public funds for their $1.1B stadium. Even though they're in a relatively large market, Atlanta, the newest stadium prior to the two slated to open this season, spent $700M of taxpayer money for their new digs.

Politicians know that it's an unpopular idea, so they're finding creative ways to get around having to put it to a vote where it would most likely fail. Even though the Seahawks are an extremely popular franchise, I have my doubts that it would win a public vote for taxpayer funds. I certainly wouldn't want to go through that uncertainty should we ever be confronted with it.

Here's a good article on the NFL and other sports dependence on public financing over the years, and it's 1.5 years old:

Stadium finance is so awash in public money that it is difficult to imagine how stadiums and arenas are built without tax dollars. Occasionally, a city and its taxpayers get a freebie: Anschutz Entertainment Group and MGM Grand covered the cost of T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas. The New York Jets and Giants built their Met Life Stadium without tax dollars. Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke so desperately wanted to drag his team out of St. Louis that he's footing the bill for a stadium for both the Rams and the Chargers. The Golden State Warriors, meanwhile, are privately funding a new arena in San Francisco's Mission Bay.

But all of the examples above are exceptions in the modern stadium finance landscape. Since 1997, National Football League franchises have spent an average of more than $250 million in public money on 23 new and massively overhauled stadiums. As pointed out by Georgia State University's Center for Sport and Urban Policy, 54 ballparks, arenas, and stadiums in North America have received nearly $11 billion in public funding since 2006 alone. Taxpayers got to vote on funding for just 15 of those facilities, with just eight getting approval.

In all, roughly $9.3 billion has been spent without a taxpayer vote on the matter.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnotte ... s/#3eb8c41

[NorthHawk]

Getting back to this CBA, it seems the players are expecting an extra 1 game pay check at their
current salary. I'm not sure it means that they will get that extra money or if their current paychecks
will be lessened to cover 17 games instead of 16.
If it is an extra game check and the Cap is say $200m, that would mean a reduction of $12m in
available Cap room (1/16 x $200m). Basically it eliminates the expected Cap increase for 1 year.
If it means their current salary is now spread over 17 games instead of 16, there will be some
grumbling about it.

That's the impression I get from reading different articles and quotes from players.
Here's one article from PFT:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... o-members/

[c_hawkbob]

The problem there is keeping $200M as a constant among the other changes. It does not account for the increase in the cap that will come with the increased revenue of the 17th game. It's all on a percentage of the total and the total will increase. Substantially.

[NorthHawk]

The problem there is keeping $200M as a constant among the other changes. It does not account for the increase in the cap that will come with the increased revenue of the 17th game. It's all on a percentage of the total and the total will increase. Substantially.

But will the Cap go up 6.25% in addition to the expected Cap increase?
That would mean an increase of around $20m to the Cap using existing Cap figures.
There doesn't seem to be any provision to increase existing contracts by that
amount, only that they will get a higher percentage of revenue. Maybe it's in
the details that haven't been released yet.

[RiverDog]

Just curious about the 17th game revenue. Part of the CBA proposal includes the elimination of a preseason game, and although they obviously glean more money from a regular season game vs. a preseason one, you still have to deduct the loss of the revenue from the one preseason game they are eliminating from the new 17th regular season game to come up with a net increase.

How much of a revenue impact will result from the elimination of a preseason game? Would this explain why the players might not be receiving a proportional 1/16th increase?

[obiken]

Just curious about the 17th game revenue. Part of the CBA proposal includes the elimination of a preseason game, and although they obviously glean more money from a regular season game vs. a preseason one, you still have to deduct the loss of the revenue from the one preseason game they are eliminating from the new 17th regular season game to come up with a net increase.

How much of a revenue impact will result from the elimination of a preseason game? Would this explain why the players might not be receiving a proportional 1/16th increase?

The problem is health, they dont play much in the pre-season. Look what a MASH unit the Eagles and the Hawks were. That extra game is a real sticking point. Add to that the London trips and Thursday Night football it becomes a grind on a grind.

[NorthHawk]

More information is trickling out regarding the new CBA:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -hold-out/

If true is removes some leverage for players not happy with their contract to demand more.
It seems to me that it could make some players go to FA instead of re-signing with a team if
they think they've been unfairly treated.

[c_hawkbob]

The problem there is keeping $200M as a constant among the other changes. It does not account for the increase in the cap that will come with the increased revenue of the 17th game. It's all on a percentage of the total and the total will increase. Substantially.

But will the Cap go up 6.25% in addition to the expected Cap increase?
That would mean an increase of around $20m to the Cap using existing Cap figures.
There doesn't seem to be any provision to increase existing contracts by that
amount, only that they will get a higher percentage of revenue. Maybe it's in
the details that haven't been released yet.

The current cap is based upon 47% of total revenue. Taken as an annual amount any single player's contract would be a given percent of that amount. The new CBA would take that # up to 48.5% of total revenue. Divide by 17 instead of 16. Either way it's a huge increase.

As for whether or not it would be a 1/16 increase, that would depend on the new TV contract (which is up for renegotiation) and as they always increase, and given the extra game they would be negotiating with, I don't see how it couldn't be a 1/16th increase. This HAS to have been taken into account by the players union reps when they voted in favor of accepting the new deal.

[RiverDog]

Just curious about the 17th game revenue. Part of the CBA proposal includes the elimination of a preseason game, and although they obviously glean more money from a regular season game vs. a preseason one, you still have to deduct the loss of the revenue from the one preseason game they are eliminating from the new 17th regular season game to come up with a net increase.

How much of a revenue impact will result from the elimination of a preseason game? Would this explain why the players might not be receiving a proportional 1/16th increase?

The problem is health, they dont play much in the pre-season. Look what a MASH unit the Eagles and the Hawks were. That extra game is a real sticking point. Add to that the London trips and Thursday Night football it becomes a grind on a grind.

I understand and agree with you about why the players don't want the 17th game. My question was strictly about the financial part of the proposal, if eliminating the revenue in a preseason game is accounted for in their formula as to how much of an increase in the amount of money the players will be getting.

[NorthHawk]

The current cap is based upon 47% of total revenue. Taken as an annual amount any single player's contract would be a given percent of that amount. The new CBA would take that # up to 48.5% of total revenue. Divide by 17 instead of 16. Either way it's a huge increase.

As for whether or not it would be a 1/16 increase, that would depend on the new TV contract (which is up for renegotiation) and as they always increase, and given the extra game they would be negotiating with, I don't see how it couldn't be a 1/16th increase. This HAS to have been taken into account by the players union reps when they voted in favor of accepting the new deal.

I understand that, but how do they address the existing contracts? What's the mechanism to share that with the rest of the team, or is all of the
new money going to go to contracts signed after the CBA is put into force?

There's an article on PFT this morning saying that a new TV deal will give each team an extra $100m per team per year. With the new CBA, players
would get $48.5m of it. Not all will be in the form of cash, but that huge influx of money will be available. Will it only be shared amongst those
that sign contracts after the CBA is finalized? If so, how does that impact players on existing contracts, and if not, how would they open the
current contracts to add money - and how would it be shared? Would they share it as a % of Cap for each contract or equally? Will some get more
of a raise than others?
These decisions might cause discord within some teams.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... done-soon/

[RiverDog]

The current cap is based upon 47% of total revenue. Taken as an annual amount any single player's contract would be a given percent of that amount. The new CBA would take that # up to 48.5% of total revenue. Divide by 17 instead of 16. Either way it's a huge increase.

I asked this question earlier. Is the proposed 17th game to be counted as the same percentage of revenue as the current 16 games as you're suggesting (Divide by 17 instead of 16)? Or will the elimination of revenue garnered from the preseason game that's being cut have to be taken into account, say, for example, divide by 16.5 under the assumption that a preseason game yields 50% of the revenue that a regular season game earns?

[c_hawkbob]

How am I supposed to know that? I already said that it is something that had to have been address in the meetings with the player reps and they voted in favor so to my mind it has to have been addressed equitably. We likely won't get answers to minutia like that until the thing is ratified and details released.

[RiverDog]

How am I supposed to know that? I already said that it is something that had to have been address in the meetings with the player reps and they voted in favor so to my mind it has to have been addressed equitably. We likely won't get answers to minutia like that until the thing is ratified and details released.

I was simply asking a question and thought that you might have the answer as you've given quite detailed explanations of terms in the proposed CBA. Perhaps I overlooked your remark in a previous reply. Sorry.

[NorthHawk]

My questions were basically rhetorical and maybe hoping someone would have read things I
haven't that might shed some light.

On another note, the Cap is supposed to be raised to around $200m from about $188m of last year.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... n-in-2020/

Edit:
There's a new article on PFT that says the Cap for 2020 may be $205m if the new CBA is ratified.

[RiverDog]

According to this opinion piece, the CBA offer now on the table for players either to ratify or reject could be a do-or-die proposition:

In other words, if the measure fails, all hell is poised to break loose next year.

Don’t want to play 17 games? Well, what about an 18-game schedule? Shocked by rising quarterback salaries? Well, how about a cap-within-the-salary-cap?

“It would probably be a system that’s worse than the system that we’re working under now,” DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), pondered to Mike Florio during a Pro Football Talk (PFT) podcast. “And they would basically dare the players to strike under that system.” Or decertify and sue on antitrust grounds.

Such scorched-earth scenarios present more items for discussion as the NFLPA kicks off its annual meetings on Sunday at the Ritz-Carlton in Key Biscayne, Florida, against the backdrop of serious division among player leadership about the merits of the deal now under ballot box consideration.

If the proposed labor deal fails, owners have already threatened with a vote to see the current CBA to its expiration following the 2020 season – which would start the clock on another type of nasty NFL labor war.

It’s crunch time. Or so it seems. Players have until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Thursday to submit electronic ballots.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 990505002/

[NorthHawk]

Russell Okung has filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge against the NFLPA.
This could get real ugly quickly.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... otiations/

[trents]

So some of the players are unhappy with their own union. Reading between the lines, I wonder if Okung and others believe the players' union is in bed with owners.

[RiverDog]

I might want to edit the thread title and take out the "Imminent" part.

[c_hawkbob]

I still think it is imminent. This is just the top end of the pay scale trying to take control of the situation because they know the bottom end of the pay scale (probably more like the bottom 2/3's) are going to push this through.

The raises and perks to the average NFL players (as well as the retired players) are the sweet spot of this deal by design. As soon as the player reps voted it favor it was practically a done deal. The players reps represent all of the players, unlike the "executive committee" that Okung serves on that is the voice of the multi millionaires.

[RiverDog]

I still think it is imminent. This is just the top end of the pay scale trying to take control of the situation because they know the bottom end of the pay scale (probably more like the bottom 2/3's) are going to push this through.

The raises and perks to the average NFL players (as well as the retired players) are the sweet spot of this deal by design. As soon as the player reps voted it favor it was practically a done deal. The players reps represent all of the players, unlike the "executive committee" that Okung serves on that is the voice of the multi millionaires.

I hope you're right. The very last thing I want to see is another work stoppage.

Aaron Rodgers brought up what I thought was a reasonable compromise to the 17 game schedule, and that was to go to an 18 week/2 byes format. They obviously wouldn't bring in the same revenue that the 17h game would, but it would add another weekend of television with Prime Time games, plus the extra bye would appeal to a lot of players.

[c_hawkbob]

Problem there is any further negotiations would require a no vote. If that happens you can bet that it's not just sabre rattling from the owners that subsequent negotiations won't go well for the players.

New TV deals are in negotiations NOW ... TV execs have offers ready to go predicated on those 17 games and 2 extra playoff teams and a long term CBA in place. If the owners can't deliver that the TV money won't near what it could have been. That's why their first offer to the players is such a sweetheart deal.

On the ride home from work today Rich Eisen was interviewing some guy that is a lifelong Hockey and NFL exec. and most of that previous sentence was what he had to say. In his opinion, while he can see why individuals might be against it, it's a perfect storm of incentives right now for both sides to get this done now, cause if the vote is no this deal will NOT serve as the starting point for further negotiations.