Letter From Jeffrey Lurie and Joe Banner
This was an email sent out to all Eagles fan on the PE.com email list. For those who haven't read this, it is an interesting read.
In light of the events that occurred yesterday, we wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and how it affects the Philadelphia Eagles. As we are sure you are aware, the contract between the league and the labor union representing the players has expired, the union decertified and we have entered into a lockout.
However, the NFL remains committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached – an agreement that is good for the long-term health of the league. We believe that a deal will get done.
We want you to know our focus is on preparation for the 2011 season and we are going to continue to do everything we can to strengthen our football team. We will be ready to take advantage of all opportunities within league rules to help reach our ultimate goal. We are also excited about the upcoming 2011 draft on April 28-30 and our preparation for that has been in the works for a long time.
Regardless of what transpires throughout this offseason, our commitment to winning a Super Bowl remains the number one priority throughout our entire organization. We are also committed to keeping an open line of communication with you and our entire fan base throughout these labor discussions. We plan on hosting several events throughout the off season that our fans can enjoy. Our annual Draft Party will take place on April 28 at Lincoln Financial Field.
We greatly appreciate your continued support.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Lurie and Joe Banner
Below, we have attached the official communication sent this morning from the NFL office:
NFL STATEMENT ON "DECERTIFICATION"-LITIGATION-LOCKOUT
The fastest way to a fair agreement is for both the union and the clubs to continue the mediation process. Unfortunately, the players’ union notified our office at 4pm ET on Friday that it had “decertified” and walked away from mediation and collective bargaining to initiate the antitrust litigation it has been threatening to file. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, the clubs offered a deal that would have had no adverse financial impact upon veteran players in the early years and would meet the players’ financial demands in the latter years.
The union left a very good deal on the table. It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.
The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.
At a time when thousands of employees are fighting for their collective bargaining rights, this union has chosen to abandon collective bargaining in favor of a sham ‘decertification’ and antitrust litigation. This litigation maneuver is built on the indisputably false premise that the NFLPA has stopped being a union and will merely delay the process of reaching an agreement.
The NFL clubs remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached. The NFL calls on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.
Since June of 2009, 21 months ago, the NFL clubs have made numerous comprehensive, detailed proposals and counter-proposals; negotiated in dozens of formal sessions and smaller group meetings; and engaged in a series of intensive negotiating sessions over the past three weeks under the auspices of George Cohen, the director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. We have reaffirmed to Director Cohen our commitment to the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached.
The goals of the NFL clubs have been clear from the start. The current CBA is flawed in numerous respects, and the system must be improved to ensure continued growth and innovation and a better future for the NFL, the players, and the fans.
The clubs are willing to make many changes proposed by the union, and they have modified their economic proposals in numerous respects. We need an agreement that – when looking back two, four or 10 years from now – both sides will recognize as fair, smart, good for the game, and good for all involved, including players, fans, and clubs.
Regrettably, the union's leadership has walked out and is refusing to participate in collective bargaining. The union has insisted on a continuation of an unsustainable status quo rather than agreeing to reasonable adjustments that reflect new economic realities we all have experienced. The status quo would also mean no improvements for retired players, too much money to a handful of rookies, and no changes to improve our drug programs.
The union's abandonment of bargaining has forced the clubs to take action they very much wanted to avoid. At the recommendation of the Management Council Executive Committee under the authority it has been delegated by the clubs, the league has informed the union that it is taking the difficult but necessary step of exercising its right under federal labor law to impose a lockout of the union. The clubs are committed to continuing to negotiate until an agreement is reached, and will gladly continue to work with the FMCS.
The clubs believe that this step is the most effective way to accelerate efforts to reach a new agreement without disruption to the 2011 season. The clubs want to continue negotiating intensively to reach a fair agreement as soon as possible. Our goal is finding common ground and resolving the issues with the union. That is why we ask the union to resume negotiations with the federal mediator. The negative consequences for the players and clubs will continue to escalate the longer it takes to reach an agreement.
Our message to the fans is this: We know that you are not interested in any disruption to your enjoyment of the NFL. We know that you want football. You will have football. This will be resolved. Our mission is to do so as soon as possible and put in place with the players an improved collective bargaining agreement that builds on our past success and makes the future of football and the NFL even better – for the teams, players, and fans.
We have great respect for the fans. We have great respect for our players. We have great respect for the game and the tradition of the NFL. We will do everything that we reasonably can to ensure that everyone’s attention returns to the football field as soon as possible.
10 comments
|
recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
fan shot ?
Missanelli: "Is he (Reid) on the clock this year, and if doesn't win it, will you have a different viewpoint on him ?"
Banner: "I can't give you a direct answer to that question, as much as I (would) like."
its an email.
not a link.
"This team (Philadelphia Eagles) gives me the best chance of winning a Super Bowl."
-Michael Vick #7
It's on their website
Missanelli: "Is he (Reid) on the clock this year, and if doesn't win it, will you have a different viewpoint on him ?"
Banner: "I can't give you a direct answer to that question, as much as I (would) like."
by Eagladelphia on Mar 12, 2011 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
obviously i missed it then.
i got this from an email
"This team (Philadelphia Eagles) gives me the best chance of winning a Super Bowl."
-Michael Vick #7
What's your take on it ?
I have a hard time buying anything these guys say
Missanelli: "Is he (Reid) on the clock this year, and if doesn't win it, will you have a different viewpoint on him ?"
Banner: "I can't give you a direct answer to that question, as much as I (would) like."
by Eagladelphia on Mar 12, 2011 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
Eh...
it’s an argument where two sides disagree…
Like any argument, there’s not a simple ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. The league has some good points that I have yet to hear the union address, but at the same time, the union has some good points, too.
Of course both sides present themselves as the ‘right’ side, everyone does that in an argument in an effort to get people to agree with them.
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
true, to a degree
of course they care about fans…at least to the point they recognize that we are their only source of revenue.
BUT…without a long-term plan that is both profitable for owners and players while protecting the safety of players even into their retirement, then the fans don’t really matter b/c it’s a matter of time till the house of cards tumbles. There has to be a solid between the parties before they can actively care about the fans
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
It's dumb to
want them to consider us. It’s their lively hood.
Take the name off the back of the jersey's and reinvent football as a team sport.
"The way I figure it, if my heads gonna pop off it's gonna pop off anyways" - Ellis Hobbs on the possibility of his neck breaking.
by MightyJoeBanner on Mar 13, 2011 1:04 PM EDT reply actions
The safety and rookie salary caps were things that both sized agreed to going in, so it’s really negated in the "concession" department. What was the NFL going to do? Make it more hazardous? They were changing rules and fining before the season regardless of the CBA.
So essentially the Players get:
Guaranteed 16 game seasons for 2 years (Something that was unlikely to happen from the get-go)
$32 Million for 2 years for a legacy fund
And in exchange the Owners win:
$325 Million for every year to come
The owners did this refusing to show ANY information that they were losing money or needed it. They didn’t need to show 100%. If they showed enough information that more money was necessary out of good faith, then players would’ve likely agreed. The players weren’t going to agree on any deal with them sacraficing their cut of the money without seeing at least some financial papers. Sure buisness normally don’t do that, but ask yourself, what regular buisness has the owners making 40% of the revenue? If this was Chrysler or GM you hear people complain all the time about the amount the CEO’s make even though it’s a few millions. You think we would support them asking for more money if they made 40% all revenue? I doubt it.
Wouldn’t you be suspicious if someone said they needed 1 Billion dollars, then changes it from $650 Million then to $325 Million. It makes you wonder if they really do need the money. What was going to happen to the $675 Million if they had agreed to the $1 Billion dollars they originally "Needed". Clearly they don’t need it that bad or all of it if they can make due with 2/3rds less. The whole situation along with the way they have been planning this opt out is suspect.
Maybe if they took the deal that would earn them more money rather than take less money in order to create a "warchest" then they wouldn’t need to ask for more money.

by 



























