NFL players ‘discussing’ proposed collective bargaining agreement

NFL owners were hoping a new collective bargaining agreement would swoop in for a landing this week.

Instead, it’s locked in a frustrating holding pattern, endlessly circling the airport.

There was no vote from the players Friday on a proposed CBA they got from owners the night before, and no guarantee there would be one before the Tuesday deadline set by owners for the players to re-form as a union and ratify the deal.

Kevin Mawae, president of the NFL Players Assn., said Friday that the players are “discussing” the latest offer — one that assumes a global settlement of all unresolved litigation — but there would be no further statements for the day out of respect for the mourning Kraft family. Myra Kraft, wife of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, died of cancer-related complications this week.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith and several owners attended Kraft’s funeral Friday in Newton, Mass.

For the players, approving a deal is a multistep process. There’s the issue of reconstituting as a union, which owners say can be done almost instantaneously but players say could take up to two weeks. There’s resolving the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit (10 players are named plaintiffs) and the so-called lockout-insurance case regarding TV revenues, and whether those should be folded into the CBA. Then, there’s voting on whether to accept the other terms of the labor agreement.

The NFL thinks there is ample time for the players to do those things before Tuesday’s deadline and the scheduled beginning of free agency Wednesday.

“That process is within their control and the timing is largely within their control,” said Jeff Pash, the league’s top lawyer, “but we believe that they could do so.”

Incidentally, one of those deal terms could have a direct influence on the Los Angeles market.

In the proposal, the league has specific language that refers to the stadium situations in California as a whole, and L.A. in particular, that shows a willingness by owners to grease the skids for a deal.

The incentive has to do with stadium “investment credits,” revenue that can be set aside to help build a venue rather than factoring into the salary cap. Under the proposed agreement, those credits are higher in California than for stadiums in other states, and have the potential to be higher still for an L.A. stadium solution.

According to Pash, the special provisions recognize “both the unique costs of building in California, and the relatively greater difficulty and the experience of getting support other than from the private sector.”

As for L.A., Pash said, “We can either work within that structure, or we can do a separate almost side-type arrangement with the players association, and really that will depend on where we are, what the prospects for getting a team will be in Los Angeles, and how that whole process will come together.”

Goodell said the proposed deal “works for the growth of our game going forward and encouraging investment in our game.” He has long pointed to the fact there haven’t been any new stadium starts since 2006, when the last CBA was put in place, and argued that agreement wasn’t conducive to owners making that type of investment.

So what does this new California/L.A. language mean?

Well, first of all, it means Goodell & Co. were thinking about the state and L.A. during these high-pressure negotiations, another indication they’re serious about getting something done.

Specifically, it means the NFL wants to encourage and incentivize investment in California stadium projects.

What would happen is the league would lend the L.A. team owner money. . That money would be deducted off the top of the total revenue pool before it is divided between the owners (53%) and the players (47%). Therefore, both the owners and the players would be making a sacrifice to help grow the league.

sam.farmer@latimes.com

twitter.com/latimesfarmer