ESPN NFL

NEW ORLEANS -- The timing of the NFL lockout, a court case that could lift it and the draft will probably claim at least one NFC North minicamp.

Vikings coach Leslie Frazier had planned a three-day veteran minicamp for the weekend of April 8, one of two mandatory minicamps he would otherwise be allowed to schedule as a new head coach. But it appears the earliest a lockout could end is after an April 6 hearing before federal judge Susan Richard Nelson in Minneapolis.

Part of the reason for having such an early camp is to get an initial assessment of the team before setting final draft priorities. But Frazier said Sunday that the conditioning of players would be a factor in deciding the timing of the camp, and it's fair to assume that at least some players wouldn't be ready for a minicamp two days after the end of the lockout.

"There are a lot of factors you have to consider now," Frazier said.

If Nelson lifts the lockout, it seems more likely that Frazier will schedule his camps for sometime after the draft.

NEW ORLEANS -- Greetings from the scene of the 2011 NFL owners meeting, where team officials are beginning to arrive and the lockout is already at the tip of many tongues.

Many of you are wondering what urgency either the NFL or its players might have to resolve their differences in March, especially when the industry's primary revenue producers -- regular-season games -- won't begin for another six months.

After all, most players' compensation doesn't kick in until games begin. (Their health insurance is suspended, however.) And obviously, the teams themselves generate most of their income from television money and ticket sales tied to games.

So when I had an opportunity Sunday, I asked Green Bay Packers president/CEO Mark Murphy if there are any areas where teams are already feeling the impact of the lockout. According to Murphy, some corporate sponsors are expressing concern about renewing their deals with the uncertainty of the 2011 regular season.

"For a lot of sponsorships, there is a lead time," Murphy said. "They're worried [whether] this will be resolved in time for [them] to be able to start programs in time for the season."

Murphy also suggested that some teams are having trouble getting commitments for premium seating in their stadiums, although the Packers are not likely to be one of those.

Typically, you rarely hear NFL executives provide any level of specifics about their revenues, sales and losses. I'll be interested to see how much of that information trickles out this week with much of the national media that covers the NFL assembled in once place.

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.

On the first full day of Lockout'11, three of our NFC North teams reached out to media members in one form or another to provide some local context and/or relevant information. (I don't blame the Minnesota Vikings for their silence. The lockout might have squashed any hope they have to receive financing for a new stadium in 2011.)

Here are the highlights:

Chicago Bears: In a statement, president/CEO Ted Phillips predicted that "a deal will get done" with players and "we expect to play football in 2011." He said plans remain in place for the Bears' "Ultimate Weekend," including the draft party and Bears Expo at Soldier Field, and added: "As an individual club, our team focus is on our preparation for the 2011 season and we want Bears fans to know we are going to continue to do everything we can within the League rules to prepare for a championship season. Our immediate focus is on preparing for the draft. We also continue to evaluate our team and will be ready to take advantage of all avenues to improve our team once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached."

Detroit Lions: Team president Tom Lewand addressed the lockout-related problem faced by players rehabilitating injuries or surgery. Those players, including quarterback Matthew Stafford, can't have direct contact with team officials, nor can they use team facilities, during a lockout.

"We have mechanisms in place where we can monitor the rehabilitation of any injured players who were injured playing football last year," Lewand said, according to a transcript of his remarks. "The guys that we know we have set up at rehabilitation facilities around the country. We have lines of communication open to those rehabilitation facilities and we'll be able to monitor the progress of those injured players as they progress."

The Lions plan to keep their season-ticket holders informed via e-mail blasts and letters sent through the U.S. mail, Lewand said.

Green Bay Packers: In a conference call with local reporters, Packers executives Mark Murphy and Jason Weid said the team hopes to avoid layoffs during the lockout, but that employee salaries and new hiring have been frozen, according to Don Walker of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Top executives could face "relatively sizable" pay reductions, Weid said. That list includes Murphy, general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy.

Plans remain in place for a $13-$14 million in upgrades to Lambeau Field.