ESPN NFL

The exact day of approval for the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), be it Thursday or Friday or next week -- is largely irrelevant for most of us. But it's worth pointing out the timing is critical for the schedule of one NFC North team.

We've been discussing the moving target of the Chicago Bears' training camp start, as well as their preseason schedule. Don't forget, however, that their Oct. 23 game in London against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is facing a looming deadline.

As we originally noted in April, the NFL announced its labor dispute must be resolved by Aug. 1 in order for the game to be played as scheduled. Otherwise, it would be moved to the Bucs' Raymond James Stadium.

That gives the sides nearly two weeks to resolve any issues that might arise during negotiations this week. To the extent that we can handicap such things, it seems the Bears have a reasonable chance of making the Transatlantic trip. That might come as a disappointment to some players -- linebacker Brian Urlacher said last month that "I'm not excited to go to London" -- but such is life.

We've been casting a skeptical eye since last week on the possibility of the Chicago Bears actually playing their Aug. 7 preseason opener in the annual Hall of Fame game. Wednesday, the NFL appeared ready to relent.

League executive vice president Jeff Pash told reporters that he still hopes the game will be played but admitted: "It's getting tight. It's getting pretty tight. It would be pretty challenging so that is one of the things we'll have to focus on."

It would be cool for the Bears to play in that game a day after defensive end Richard Dent's enshrinement ceremony. But the logistics just don't seem worth the trouble. The Bears have already delayed the start of their training camp by four days, meaning the earliest they could report to Olivet Nazarene University is Tuesday. In reality, continuing uncertainty about final ratification of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) makes it impossible to predict when the Bears might get to camp.

Bears tailback Matt Forte and placekicker Robbie Gould have both expressed concern about playing in a preseason game with less than two weeks of training camp to prepare. As each day goes by, the odds increase that the Hall of Fame game will be canceled and the Bears will report to camp along with the rest of the league around Aug. 1. Stay tuned.

As a service to you, dear reader/user/commenter, I wanted to make sure everyone knows that the Chicago Bears face at least a four-day delay to the start of training camp, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter.

We've been discussing the seemingly unworkable logistics of the Bears' scheduled report date on Friday, one day after owners are expected to ratify the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The earliest the Bears will get to Olivet Nazarene University is next Tuesday, Schefter reports, and an Aug. 1 start date for all NFL teams is a possibility as well.

Hanging in the balance is the Aug. 7 Hall of Fame game, the preseason opener between the Bears and St. Louis Rams. I don't know if a four-day delay would force cancellation of that game, but it would further water down what is already a substance-light event.

Stay tuned. But in the meantime, you can probably cancel those hotel rooms in Bourbonnais, Ill., this weekend.

We noted earlier Monday that the Chicago Bears should soon find out if they will open training camp later this week and/or play in the Aug. 7 Hall of Fame game, as scheduled. The Minnesota Vikings are also facing a deadline, originally announced to be Monday, for deciding whether to hold training camp off-site or move it to their permanent training facility in suburban Minneapolis.

Robert of Dubuque, Iowa, asked via the mailbag if we can expect to hear something Monday.

We first discussed this question last month, and since then a number of NFL teams have scrapped their off-site camp plans in favor of their permanent facilities. Scheduling uncertainty caused by the lockout made them unable to make the necessary commitment to their host schools.

The Vikings said in a statement that they would decide by July 18 if they will hold camp at Minnesota State, Mankato. Judd Zulgad of the Star Tribune recently reported that deadline could have some leeway, especially given the apparent trajectory of negotiations, but there has been no official word from the team on that.

*Update: The team announced late Monday morning that a final decision has been delayed. In a statement, the team said: "While the Vikings had previously set a deadline of July 18, ongoing CBA discussions have given the Vikings and the University reason to refrain from making a final determination on camp at this time. Both parties remain hopeful that the team will be practicing in front of Vikings fans in Mankato this summer."

With only two practice fields, the Vikings’ year-around facility isn’t an ideal location for training camp, and coach Leslie Frazier would have to make some adjustments to his intended practice plan. Frazier has said he would prefer holding camp in Mankato if at all possible.

The timing of this question is tight. Even if negotiations delay the start of camp, there isn’t much leeway on the back end for the Vikings to extend its conclusion. Classes at the school begin Aug. 22 and the team would have to clear out several days before in order to make room for incoming students and staff.

I know some of you are awaiting word from the team before making travel plans. Traditionally, training camp brings up to $5 million in revenues for the local economy. We will pass along any announcement the Vikings make.

Thanks to ESPN's Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter for already answering the question we posed this morning: Is there any possibility the Chicago Bears could open training camp as scheduled next week and play their Aug. 7 preseason opener?

The answer, based on the timeline Mortensen and Schefter reported Monday morning: No chance.

According to their report, the best-case scenario for NFL labor talks is to reach a handshake agreement over the next week to 10 days. The presumptive collective bargaining agreement could then be ratified by owners during a July 21 meeting in Atlanta.

Is it realistic to believe the Bears could report to camp the next day? It's hard to imagine. Free agency would still be in front of them, and they would have had no opportunity to sign their draft picks or even fill out their camp roster with undrafted rookies.

And if the Bears can't begin practicing on July 23, they aren't likely to be ready to play in the Aug. 7 Hall of Fame game. From the report:

If the deal were to be ratified July 21, it would assure that almost all preseason games would be played, according to sources.

The one game in danger would be the Aug. 7 Hall of Fame matchup between the Bears and Rams. There are still mixed opinions and thoughts as to whether that game could or would be played.

Believe this: If the Hall of Fame game is the only on-field casualty of the lockout, it's a victory for everyone. And from the Bears' perspective, I doubt anyone is going to cry over the loss of a fifth preseason game.

If a deal is in fact ratified July 21 -- and remember, it's is the most optimistic forecast imaginable -- it would make sense to cancel the Hall of Fame game. The Bears ostensibly would report to training camp the following weekend, along with the rest of the NFC North, and play the final four preseason games on their schedule.

Again, this timetable is based on a fluid situation. But as we discussed earlier Monday morning, the Bears are going to have a hard time starting camp on time.

Hooray for the New York Giants, who became the first NFL team to my knowledge to publicly acknowledge the impropriety of demanding payment for season tickets during a lockout. According to multiple reports, the Giants have altered their payment calendar so that no money would change hands until NFL owners and players agree on a new collective bargaining agreement.

Full payment for tickets was due on May 1, but according to ESPNNewYork.com's Ohm Youngmisuk, the Giants are giving ticket holders the option of deferring payment until a new CBA is reached. That solves my central gripe on this issue: teams asking their fans to provide working capital during a lockout that, unless it is lifted, will result in the failure to deliver the product.

All NFL teams would eventually refund ticket payments for canceled games, but only after having it at their disposal for six months or more.

I don't have the exact deadlines for each NFC North team, but I do know the Chicago Bears have asked for full payment by April 7 and the Minnesota Vikings by May 23. Here's hoping that some, if not all, of our teams heed the Giants' example and treat their best customers with a little more financial dignity.

As we noted earlier Tuesday, Minnesota Vikings tailback Adrian Peterson is part of a new online reality show and is doing some promotional work for it. ESPN.com's interview can be found over on Page 2. But I think Doug Farrar’s interview over at Yahoo! Sports will resonate for some time.

In the interview, conducted moments after the NFL Players Association decertified last Friday and posted Tuesday, Peterson called the NFL’s arrangement with his players "modern-day slavery" and a "rip-off." He added that players "are getting robbed" and all but provided a caricature of a modern-day athlete with no touch on reality.

*Update: The words "modern-day slavery" no longer appear in the Yahoo! Sports post, but the author has confirmed via Twitter that Peterson used it during the interview. For an explanation of why it was removed, check Farrar's Twitter feed.)

*Update II: Late Tuesday afternoon, Farrar restored the full quote.

Here are the key quotes, as they appeared in original post:

On his message to people who are tired of labor talk:

Adrian Peterson: We're business-minded, also. It's not just fun and games. A lot of football players, whether it's Sunday or Monday night -- we're out there on the field, competing, hitting each other. But people don't see everything else behind it. It's a job for us, too -- every day of the week. We're in different states, sometimes thousands of miles away from our families and kids, and a lot of people don't look at it like that. All some people see is, 'Oh, we're not going to be around football.' But how the players look at it … the players are getting robbed. They are. The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that…

On other players feeling the same way:

AP: It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey -- without us, there's no football.' There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we're not all on the same page -- I don't know. I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done.

But this crazy idea about an 18-game season … I'm sure they want more entertainment and more revenue, but we're not going to see a pinch of that (the increased revenue), and it's just the business we're in.

I’ve gotten to know Peterson a little bit over the past four years, visiting his house once and meeting part of his family for a profile I wrote of him in my newspaper days. Unless something has changed dramatically, I’ve always found him to be a thoughtful, earnest and charitable human being. He has in many ways been the opposite of the caricature he’s now fulfilled. But I'm sorry, I can’t offer him any defense in this instance.

Let’s skip the usual arguments about spoiled athletes and their sense of entitlement, and focus squarely on a term that should never, ever be used to describe anything -- let alone a job that will compensate Peterson $10.72 million in 2011.

There is no such thing as "modern-day slavery" unless the instance includes the complete denial of human rights, unjust incarceration and physical force used to require free work. Anything short of that is a bad deal, not "modern-day slavery." Owners might profit off players, perhaps disproportionately to what the players themselves receive, but everyone is making money and no one is there against their will.

I’m guessing Peterson intended to use the analogy to describe what he might consider an unequal distribution of the NFL’s $9 billion in revenues. Still, I hope he realizes how inappropriate it is to put the situation of NFL players anywhere in the stratosphere of slavery.

The conflict between NFL owners and players won’t be settled by public opinion. But Peterson certainly didn’t do himself or his union colleagues any favors with this series of comments. What he said was so offensive, even for someone who has no track record of controversial comments, that I think it will paint both sides of this lockout with the brush of greed and inhumanity. Let me know when this whole labor thing is over. Please.

As regular readers know by now, one of my lockout soap box issues has been the requests for season ticket payments at a time when the NFL can't guarantee a full 2011 season. The league announced last year that full refunds for any canceled games will be provided within 30 days from when the league determines how many games will be played.

I've referred to that approach as an interest-free loan to cash-strapped owners during a lockout. A true gesture would be delaying payment until after a collective bargaining agreement is reached, but it appears some teams have recognized the extent of their request.

Over the weekend, three NFC North teams informed season-ticket holders of plans to offer some level of simple interest as a part of any refund. The amount literally could end up being pennies, but I guess you could consider it a modest gesture of acknowledgement for holding the cash of your best customers for six months or more.

Thanks to a few loyal readers and some other assistant NFC North bloggers, I've gotten a look at the communications from all four teams. The Chicago Bears were the only team that did not mention interest, and my understanding is they have no plans to offer it. (Based on the loose change likely to be involved, I wouldn't make too harsh of a judgment against the Bears for it.)

The Detroit Lions' letter, written by president Tom Lewand, includes this passage: "In the event any games are canceled, be assured we will provide you with a full refund, with simple interest, for any cancelled preseason or regular-season home games. We will provide you with the details of the refund program at the appropriate time should it become necessary."

The Green Bay Packers' letter had similar phrasing, indicating more details would arrive this summer if there is still no CBA. In the end, the Packers and Lions could follow a plan set forth by the Minnesota Vikings, who committed to paying at an annual 1 percent rate starting from the date of the canceled game and continuing until the refund is processed. To qualify for interest, season tickets must be paid in full by May 23.

As we've discussed, many of you are mulling competing factors in deciding whether to renew season tickets. Some of you don't want to support a lockout. Others don't want your money being used as a financial cushion, even if temporarily, while a work stoppage continues. And many of you, especially in Green Bay and Chicago, know that passing on tickets now will put you at the back of a long line when football eventually returns.

So in that sense, teams that pay interest aren't asking to hold your money completely for free. And a 1 percent annual rate is competitive with, say, the interest rates you would get if you put that money in the bank or even a money market account.

But practically speaking, it's much more of a gesture than a windfall. I'm no financial genius, and so we'll talk in nice round numbers here. If the cost of a ticket is $100, and the refund isn't processed for a year after the game was originally scheduled, you'll make $1 interest on the first game and less than $10 for the entire season.

Again, I don't know what interest rate the Lions and Packers would use. I don't know if any games are going to get canceled or how long the 2011 season would take to resolve if they are. But gesture or not, the basic fact remains: Those who renew season tickets are providing a (nearly) interest-free loan for a business in lockdown.

As we enter the first full week of Lockout'11, I'll try not to bury you with legal minutiae and random speculation. All of this is unprecedented, and none of us knows how it will play out.

With that said, I will pass along specific information that will have a direct impact on our NFC North community. One such story comes from Mark Maske of the Washington Post, who has a pretty good handle on how the offseason would proceed if the NFL Players Association wins an injunction against the league, effectively ending the lockout.

If that happens, the owners would impose their own structure for free agency to begin next month. According to Maske, those rules almost certainly would mirror those used during last year's uncapped offseason. Most notably for us, that would mean players would need six accrued seasons to qualify for unrestricted free agency.

We've assumed that the league would return to its previous four-year requirement when free agency began, ostensibly after a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). But if free agency starts without a new CBA, which would happen if the NFLPA's injunction is successful, players with four and five accrued years would be restricted free agents.

Based on the tenders offered this month, teams would at least have the option of matching any offer those players receive on the market. Some prominent NFC North players would fall into that category. Below is a partial list of the players who would be unrestricted with a new CBA, but restricted under the likely terms following an injunction:

Chicago Bears

• Cornerback Corey Graham
• Safety Danieal Manning
• Linebacker Nick Roach

Detroit Lions*

• Cornerback Chris Houston
• Quarterback Drew Stanton

Green Bay Packers

• Guard Daryn Colledge
• Place-kicker Mason Crosby
• Receiver James Jones
• Running back John Kuhn

Minnesota Vikings

• Defensive end Ray Edwards
• Receiver Sidney Rice

Again, none of us knows exactly how this will play out. But if you're keeping a cursory eye on the initial legal proceedings, which could continue for a month, know this much: An injunction likely will take us back to the 2010 uncapped rules for free agency.

*Update: As several of you pointed out, Lions defensive end Cliff Avril has three accrued seasons and thus will be a restricted free agent no matter what system is implemented.

Now that the NFL Players Association has decertified, and the NFL owners have locked out the players, I feel compelled to revive last month's discussion on season-ticket renewals.

Many teams are asking for deposits now. If games are canceled, the NFL will distribute refunds within 30 days of when it determines how many games will be played in 2011. In the meantime, your season-ticket money serves as an interest-free loan for teams sustaining themselves during a lockout.

I'm not really advocating action or inaction here. Not my place. More than anything, I'm just curious whether season-ticket holders will renew amid labor strife. Is the threat of losing ticket priority enough to compel normal purchases? Or will we see a downturn?

Read the entire post here.

Jeff of Denver asked a simple question that I'm surprised hasn't generated more public discussion: "Who pays for the federal mediator, the players or the owners?"

The answer, as best I can tell: You do.

As you know by now, the NFL and NFL Players Association have been negotiating for weeks with help from George Cohen of the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service. The FMCS is a government agency with an annual budget of less than $50 million. According to its website, there is no charge "for the most part" for FMCS services:

The Federal government provides most FMCS mediation services in support of collective bargaining free of charge to the parties. FMCS also offers other government-subsidized services for community and organizational conflict resolution. There are modest charges for some services such as arbitration referral.

I reached out to John Arnold, the director of public affairs for FMCS, to clarify whether any of the services being provided to the NFL or its players are fee-based. Via e-mail, here is how Arnold responded: "We are a U.S. government labor relations agency, and our core mission is to provide mediation services to labor and management during collective bargaining to mitigate or avert economically disruptive work stoppages. Mediation is provided with the voluntary consent of both labor and management. The Agency does not charge for mediation in the context of a collective bargaining negotiation."

A reasonable person might not be thrilled to know that taxpayers are footing the bill for mediation while NFL owners and players haggle over how to split revenues in a $9 billion industry, but I'm not going to get worked up about it. There is economic incentive for everyone to avoid an NFL work stoppage, even to taxpayers and the government itself.

Over the past two years, in fact, the FCMS estimates it has saved the U.S. economy $5.1 billion in wages and profits that otherwise would have been lost due to work stoppages. If Cohen can push the sides to an agreement in this case, the expense of tapping into a government program will have been justified.

Well, well. Our pet NFL labor topic, the issue of financial transparency between owners and players, has taken center stage Wednesday. According to ESPN's Chris Mortensen, the NFL Players Association is asking for additional financial information before agreeing to further revenue givebacks. Owners remain unwilling to grant the request, which would include individual statements from all 32 teams.

You know where I stand on this: An objective third party should be given access to the information and, in turn, create a report based on a mutually agreed upon set of parameters and security formalities.

The union has access to the league's financial bottom line, but they don't have a team-by-team breakdown that would tell them if a revenue downturn is league-wide or skewed by a minority of poorly performing teams. Regardless, the issue generated what I thought was a really thoughtful note from Steve of Wauwatosa, Wis., who connected the dots between a number of related topics to help explain owners' reluctance:

The more I think about the lack of detailed financial information, the more significant it becomes. The owners expect the players to take less on their word that money is tight. But the fact we don't already have more information is because so many states and communities have done just that. They put up countless millions to build stadiums with no public disclosure as to the teams' ability to pay a fair share. IF there had been such disclosure, we'd have it in the record already. But we don't.

How did anyone calculate the teams' "fair share" if no one ever saw their books? Maybe one reason the teams expect the players to take their word for it is because that tactic has already worked so many times before.

Excellent point, Steve, and one that has significant relevance to the Minnesota Vikings' current stadium drive. The NFL has done a masterful job of creating the impression that the "norm" or "going rate" for building stadiums is to ask taxpayers for about 70 percent of the financing. The remaining 30 percent is purported to be what teams can afford while still reaping the windfall that would allow them to compete financially with their league-wide competitors.

A detailed look at each team's finances might provide a different picture. Have local governments kept their teams in business by building them stadiums? Or have they been leveraged into a market that generates obscene profits for individual owners?

We don't know the answer to those questions. The financial reports of individual teams would help us answer them. That information is so valuable that I wonder if we won't ultimately end up where Michael Silver suggested over at Yahoo! Sports: Owners reducing their demands for a giveback in exchange for keeping the individual reports private. Given the stadiums the NFL still hopes to build around the country, that reduction might be the best money they ever committed.

The NFL and its Players Association are jockeying around a number of key issues as they try to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. One of the most basic, as we discussed last month, is the degree to which the players trust owners' claims that their bottom line is shrinking.

Our very own Green Bay Packers are the only NFL team with open financial records, and they show that profits dropped from $20.1 million to $9.8 million during the two most recent fiscal years that have been calculated. A central question of the debate is whether the Packers' finances are typical of other teams, whether they are on the high end or if they are on the low end.

To that end, we pushed an idea others have suggested as well: Hiring a third party to provide an independent analysis of each team's financial books and provide a report -- with sensitive information redacted -- as soon as possible. Recently, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia called for the same thing.

Now, reports suggest this issue is on the forefront of this week's extended mediation. Writes Mark Maske of the Washington Post: "Another major stumbling block this week, the sources said, is that the union continues to seek more information from the league about the teams' finances, while the NFL's negotiators remain reluctant to provide the players with the extensive financial data they seek."

Meanwhile, Peter King of Sports Illustrated expects some movement soon on this issue: "I would be surprised if this week goes by without the owners showing the players their books -- or at least more financial information than is required by the CBA."

What would this mean to NFC North blog readers? If some of the resulting information reaches the public sphere, we would get a better idea of the extent to which the Minnesota Vikings are struggling with limited revenues at the Metrodome. We would also understand better how the debt the Detroit Lions took on to build Ford Field is impacting their business. And most importantly, we would have a better idea of how the Packers -- who play in the NFL's smallest market -- compare with the rest of the league. Stay tuned.

We live for another week.

ESPN's Adam Schefter is among those reporting a seven-day extension of the NFL's current collective bargaining agreement (CBA), delaying a long-anticipated lockout by at least another week. Owners and players have until next Friday -- March 11 -- to agree on the terms of a new CBA.

In practical terms, this extension means a quiet week for NFL teams, who will be prohibited from making roster moves of any sort. Conditioning programs will remain on hold, as would any organized team activities (OTAs) that might be planned. The sole focus of the league next week will be to hammer out a new deal.

Will it happen? I'll leave that up to ESPN sources with more intimate knowledge of the situation. I'll post their assessments as warranted.

As most of you know by now, the NFL's collective bargaining agreement will expire at 11:59 p.m. ET Thursday night. Barring an unexpected last-minute agreement, that means we'll enter an unprecedented state of NFL operations beginning at midnight. As Michael Stipe sang for REM: It's the end of the world as we know it.

The first thing we have to watch for Thursday is whether the NFL Players Association decertifies itself and begins operating as a trade association as a strategy to prevent a lockout. ESPN.com's Lester Munson offers an excellent primer on what decertification means if you're interested, and Andrew Brandt of the National Football Post notes how risky -- and potentially rewarding -- it is for the players.

The bottom line is we're most likely to have one of two scenarios by Friday:

1. The NFL fighting the union's decision to decertify
2. The NFL locking out the union if there is no decertification

Either way, we'll be in labor limbo come Friday. There will be no free-agent market, no trades and no offseason workouts or contact of any kind between players and teams.

We, of course, will still post and discuss issues under the presumption that one day the NFL will return to normal. I'll keep you updated on the labor issue as warranted, but there is plenty of football on the table for us to discuss. I have a deep pool of emergency lockout post ideas, and there is nothing that U.S. District Judge David Doty can do about that one.