NLL CBA

Discussion in 'NLL News and Rumors' started by fandit, Oct 2, 2018.

  1. swami24

    swami24 Well-Known Member

    Reasonable...without knowing the details.
     
  2. fadlaxdad

    fadlaxdad Member

    Obviously "hard bargaining" going on. Nothing like a lot to lose on both sides to spur on negotiations.
     
  3. WingsNut423566

    WingsNut423566 Active Member

    Another tweet from the PA.
     

    Attached Files:

    • ps1.jpg
      ps1.jpg
      File size:
      42 KB
      Views:
      44
    RockStar likes this.
  4. chuckster

    chuckster Well-Known Member

    Even if the owners accept this one year proposal......whatever it is......we are likely right back to this point 12 months from now. And if you think this buys more time for negotiations, they had from this past January (10 months) until now to reach a deal and it's not there.

    I see this as a calculated effort by the players to turn this from a perceived player strike to an actual owner lockout if the owners don't accept it. It's a smart PR move by the players.
     
  5. Vin

    Vin Well-Known Member

    I don't know nor do I really care about what the issues are between the PLPA and the NLL.

    I will simply say this: It is in the best interests of both parties that this season is not adversely impacted by labor strife.

    For the owners, this would very much adversely impact their two new franchises.

    For the players, if the season is tanked, the owners will not forget that. Many of these new owners are more powerful and they could take a harder line because, as much as they need players, they don't need even need their franchises. There is nothing stopping them from taking a hard line and even tanking the league and restarting with a new one waiting for replacement players to grow-up.

    I believe it is in the best interests of both parties and the fans to have a 1-year agreement and, during that year, negotiate the longer agreement. The new franchises need to get established and even determine their economic viability before they can commit to a long-term labor agreement.

    In the long-run, the players do deserve a slice of the revenue pie - if not at the franchise level, then at the league level.
     
    swami24, liveone and IAmDroot like this.
  6. RockStar

    RockStar Well-Known Member

    They both have each other firmly by the balls, and, no matter which side "wins" this game of liar's poker, the win might be bittersweet, because, they could shank their prospects of expansion fees and revenue growth.

    Based on the rumours, I think the biggest sticking point on the players' side is that the league is welshing* on a previous promise to share a small portion of the wealth generated by expansion.
    (*can I actually use that ethnic slur anymore, or will the PC police put me in the paddy wagon :D )

    This might be a biggie, because, I think that promise (made by the league when there were no expansion prospects, so, they didn't think it would cost anythign.....) was the only thing that got the players to accept the last deal which fell short of what else they wanted.

    They are maybe right to stand their ground, but......they're going to hurt their own cause by doing so.
     
    Andrew GEA likes this.
  7. liveone

    liveone Member

    Based on nothing but my own interpretation and between-the-lines reading of various social media reports and the few things that have been made public (like the NFLPA letter), it sounds to me like they've come to an understanding on most things except salary growth. The players want salaries to grow along with revenue but in order to do this, the owner's would have to let them see the books every year. Either the owners don't want to open them up like that or they have a disagreement about what actually constitutes lacrosse related revenues. I read somewhere that the union feels expansion fees should be considered revenue while the owners don't.

    I suspect the PLPA recognized that there's no way to work through these accounting "compliance" issues in just a few days/weeks and reached out with a 1 year deal (something they previously rejected) because they know any interruption in the season could seriously hurt the new teams and scare away other potential big investors like Tsai/Comcast/TD Bank/NBA and NHL teams/Whoever else the hot rumor of the month is.
     
  8. chuckster

    chuckster Well-Known Member

    I think you're on the right track with this......I read it the same way.

    There likely still needs to be consensus on what "lacrosse related revenue" is. Is it just tickets and merch? If it includes merch, where is line drawn on team merch vs. player jerseys or items with player names on it? Does it go into things like concessions, parking, sponsorship/arena ad dollars? Owners probably don't want to show the "books" if it includes what they are getting from all areas if all areas aren't under the definition of "lacrosse related revenue".
     
  9. swami24

    swami24 Well-Known Member

    Vin hits one out of the park.

    Give the bean counters a year to agree on when money is actually money.
     
    Vin and IAmDroot like this.
  10. Hollywood42

    Hollywood42 Well-Known Member

    My guess is this season is in jeopardy pretty badly right now
     
  11. swami24

    swami24 Well-Known Member

    The owners should be fine with a one year deal. It gets them what they want for that year. If they players flooded and offered that, the owners better take it.
     
  12. Rottenrocker

    Rottenrocker Active Member

    I will be very surprised if the owners don't take it. We shall see.
     
  13. liveone

    liveone Member

    I would think they'd be okay with it since a few weeks ago the players reportedly turned down a 1 year deal with modest pay and reimbursement raises.
     
  14. fadlaxdad

    fadlaxdad Member

    Totally agree that a one year interim agreement would make the most sense to preserve the season and maintain a "good faith bargaining" position for both parties.

    If the sticking point is indeed what characterizes league revenue for purposes of salary growth - the players need to keep in mind that there is inequity in sharing even between themselves. No one seems to complain that the elite players get to springboard off from their play in the NLL and participate in lacrosse related revenue generating activities such as product endorsements...or as some refer to "lunch money" in off season summer ball play without accounting to their brethren lacrosse players who do not get the same opportunities - but who nevertheless sweat and bleed as much on the floor (and arguably actually sacrifice more - much more... personally and financially - to play the game). This solidarity stuff only goes so far.

    Pro sport is a business for player and owner alike. Those star players should be able to achieve whatever they can from their ability and "star power". These are the game breakers - and winners that put fans in the seats and why not let them cash in on their God gifted talent. The point is - that owners are like that too. They want to win for themselves as well.

    Maybe this league can get to a point in 5-10 years where all the "pro" players will be able to earn a basic and modest "living wage" from the game - we are nowhere near that yet. The only way for that to happen is for the owners and players to work together to continue to build the game. The fan base is not there - nor the advertising revenues for the league. CBA strife in a precarious league like the NLL is really a bit of a joke. Let's go everyone - settle this BS out and get the season underway.
     
  15. WingsNut423566

    WingsNut423566 Active Member

    If history is any indication. The league is probably going to have a setback in the next 5-10 years.
     
  16. swami24

    swami24 Well-Known Member

    One more year, with a brand new market and a reboot will give both sides a better idea of potential growth trends.
     
  17. Andrew GEA

    Andrew GEA Guest


    Could you imagine the NEBW trying to claim mall and casino Revenues lol
     
  18. liveone

    liveone Member

  19. liveone

    liveone Member

    More details

    https://twitter.com/CSmall15/status/1060872282300649472?s=19

    "The League rejected our 1 year deal with a no strike clause and a mandated 10 negotiation dates to hash out a long term deal that satisfies both side. It’s clear we want to start the season on time for our loyal fans! Can’t say that feeling is shared..."
     
  20. chuckster

    chuckster Well-Known Member

    Now the players should call it what it is -- a lockout.
     

Share This Page