Q&A: Redman says the Falcons strongly support the union

THE UNTOUCHABLES -- John Parker Wilson, Matt Ryan and Chris Redman will wear blue jerseys and will not be hit in the live scrimmage. (Curtis Compton/CCompton@ajc.com)

THE QUARTERBACKS: John Parker Wilson, Matt Ryan and Chris Redman will all on hand for workouts last week. (Curtis Compton/CCompton@ajc.com)

Falcons backup quarterback Chris Redman came into town to play in Matt Ryan’s golf outing and take part in the seven-on-seven drills that were held on Tuesday and Wednesday in Buford.

Before he took the field on Tuesday, he chatted with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

redman mug

Chris Redman

Q: How has your offseason been going?

A: It’s been great. Obviously, it’s been different. But for the most part, I got a chance to spend a lot of time with my family back home in Kentucky. I try to shoot down here as much as a I can to get with some of the guys. It’s just kind of good see the guys as well.  Everybody is really fired up. When you’re away you kind of get more hungry.  We’ve all been away for a little bit. We are definitely getting hungry for the season.

Q: How did you reconcile the ending to last season?

A: Obviously, when you lost at the end of the season it kind of leaves a bad taste. I think it gets you fired up for the next year. I think everybody feels like we are going to be right back where we were and hopefully keep improving where we fell a little short. We have a good foundation here. So it’s just a matter of keep building on it and keep giving ourselves  chances.

Q: What was your take on the draft?

A: I’m fired up. Anytime that you draft a receiver like that early in the draft, I think as a quarterback you have to really be excited.

Q: Did you play in Matt Ryan’s benefit golf outing for the Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta?

A: Yeah, my team actually won the outing. It was a great event. I think he’s going to do a lot of great things in this community. That was the inaugural event.

Q: How are you dealing with the lockout?

A: We are just going to have to hang tight. Obviously,  we want to play. We want to get out there as soon as possible. Hopefully, it gets cleared up. But we have to do the best thing for the league and all of the players in the future. I think we are willing to do whatever it takes. We are all behind our union and we think that they are doing a great job so far. We have to keep positive and hope we get back on the field real soon.

Q: What do you hope to get out of the workouts?

A: Anytime that you come out and get with your guys, it’s not only as a quarterbacks and receivers, but just as a group, I think it’s good for all of the guys to get together and work with each other. I think it’s good for camaraderie. We have a really close team anyway. Anytime you come out and get with the guys, it makes a world of difference.

–D. Orlando Ledbetter, The Atlanta Falcons beat blog

Get instant updates on Twitter at AJCFalcons and you can join the Facebook Fan page at AJC Falcons.

75 comments Add your comment

Falcons Will Win

June 10th, 2011
5:31 am

He’s delirious if he thinks his union headed by MeMaurice is doing a good job.

Jimmy Jam

June 10th, 2011
6:41 am

Keep em locked out til pre-season over so I can get a ticket refund from those worthless games.

Hugh Culverhouse

June 10th, 2011
7:33 am

Enter your comments here

robert

June 10th, 2011
7:46 am

Most of these guys are college educated and still too STUPID to see that their union is blowing smoke up their you know whats. You won’t be getting any support from me and i hope it cost all of you a ton of money before it is settled.

dean

June 10th, 2011
7:58 am

What union? I thought it was de-certified?

[...] Atlanta Falcons [...]

SeenThisB4

June 10th, 2011
8:06 am

The longer the lockout, the better the odds are that the free agency period will be rescinded, enabling the Saints to retain all their free agents! Long live the lockout!

ken herock

June 10th, 2011
8:17 am

Well.. even if the lockout lasts all season, at least we will still have hockey in Atlanta. No.. wait! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Real Falcon

June 10th, 2011
8:18 am

Always a bunch of union haters on the blog.
I’m sure they have a lot in common with the billionaire owners.

A MADFAN

June 10th, 2011
8:54 am

I believe that the fans should have thier on union. and when the nfl begins their games this year we should boycot all of them. Just to show them who really is in charge.

PMC

June 10th, 2011
9:02 am

PMC

June 10th, 2011
9:02 am

Why would Redman care anyway? He’d be selling insurance if it weren’t for Bobby Petrino.

Falcons Will Win

June 10th, 2011
9:44 am

Mama says Unions are the devil

Bryan G.

June 10th, 2011
9:45 am

@ Dean – My thoughts exactly. I thought there was no union and thus Brady, et. al., sued for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust law…

So Redman supports something that doesn’t exist??

A Conservative Voice

June 10th, 2011
9:53 am

Owners need to keep ‘em locked out until they do away with their union…..owners need to hang tough on this issue and force the players to concede. Unions will ultimately kill the league.

steve

June 10th, 2011
10:01 am

at this point i hope these spoiled brats starve

Flo=Ri-Duh

June 10th, 2011
10:29 am

Dissolve the league – college football will be better off without the NFL’s greedy agents raiding and corrupting the junior class.

whodatatl

June 10th, 2011
10:36 am

Unions had their time and place, it’s come and gone. Also, why would NFL players take “industrial action” against the owners in the first place? Sure it means the owners may lose a little money, but they’re only hurting themselves by not playing and making the fans angry.

Seriously

June 10th, 2011
10:44 am

The players are insisting on seeing the owner’s financial books. Can you imagine if I went to my boss and told him I needed to see his books – so I can decide if I should get paid more money?!?!

Union Buster

June 10th, 2011
10:48 am

To hell with all unions. They’re destroying our country.

Rikus

June 10th, 2011
10:49 am

@A Conservative Voice – Uhhhh actually the NFL is in a legal battle to FORCE the players to recreate the union. The last thing the NFL wants is a free market. They’re monopolists and socialists. If you’re a conservative voice, you should be supporting the players – a free market would be a dream come true for them.

FJR

June 10th, 2011
10:50 am

Look, I’m generally anti-union in real life. But that’s because, in real life, owners have competition too. If you don’t like working at Wal-Mart, you can go work at Target. In the NFL, that’s not the case. With salary caps, etc there is no competition for labor, to any real extent. All you people who are crying about unions, I don’t see you clamoring for a complete lift of the salary cap, which is just as “communist” as a players union. If you want to say “no union” then you need to let guys like Jerry Jones spend as much money as he wants, no restrictions whatsoever. That’s what a pure free market would be, not just dissolving the players union. You think Arthur Blank could compete with Jerry Jones in a free for all league? No. So if you want this sort of leveled playing field, you have to deal with players unions.

The money the owners are making in this league makes the money the players make seem like peanuts. I think the reason people cry foul on the players is that, due to the nature of the sport, we are all intimately aware of exactly what they make. We know the players make a TON of money. We don’t know exactly what the owners are bringing in BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO GIVE THAT INFORMATION OUT. I guarantee you, if they weren’t making ungodly sums of profit, they would be begging you to look at the financials.

Yet we keep falling for it, hook line and sinker. All across the country the public gives money to billionaire owners to build stadiums, so the owners can make even more money.

I don’t begrudge the owners that, they’re all genius businessmen, doing the best they can to make as much as they can. Who I begrudge are the public that lets them run all over the municipalities. The public who somehow see the players as the bad guys, when they just want their fair share of the gigantic pie. The players are the ones who are totally killing their bodies, after all.

Terza

June 10th, 2011
10:52 am

The players are all overpaid jerks. Real professionals don’t join freaking unions.

FJR

June 10th, 2011
10:57 am

Terza, if you think that we shouldn’t have unions, and players should only get what they deserve, then we should do away with the salary cap and all other restrictions on spending. Let owners pay the players whatever the owners seem fit. Do away with the draft, and let college players sign with whatever team is willing to pay the most. That’s how it works in a real life free market, right?

I’m sure the players would go along with that.

K-Sly

June 10th, 2011
10:59 am

All these secret meeting that their having, hopefully lead to some football soon. I am filling withdrawal symptoms. No free agency, no reports in the papers on Falcon football, rumor mill is bone dry, and the nightmare of Sunday’s with no football is slowly becoming a reality. it shoulsn’t be so difficult to agree on a rookie cap (we all know they get paid we to much coming out of college), certain NFL rules can be agreed upon, I side with the players on 18 games being to much for their health ( which don’t include the playoffs), and putting the greed aside to agree on percentage split with budget. Yeah players got the owners on the 60/40 split in 2006, why not meet halfway and go 50/50 split. We go to see the players play, not the owners and the owners pay the players for a service- so do your jobs. Im hungry and ready for football, and i want it now.

FJR

June 10th, 2011
11:04 am

Also, let’s all remember that the owners are locking the players out. This isn’t a strike. The owners are trying to force the players to take a collective bargaining agreement. The owners are the ones who want collective bargaining, not the players. The owners are the ones who want a labor deal. In real life, in a free market, there aren’t labor deals. In a free market, by its very definition, there are no restrictions on how much labor gets paid. Owners aren’t allowed to collude in a free market. There is competition. The owners don’t want that. The owners want artificial restrictions on how much labor gets paid, because the owners know that the players are ultimately the reason why people come to the games, more so than fancy stadiums. The owners want to continue to get a gigantic, out of whack, portion of the profits, when the public typically pays for the stadiums and the players provide the labor.

tardawg

June 10th, 2011
11:10 am

Hey K-sly ask your boss for a 50/50 split in profits see what happens. FJR- some good points but look what the unions have done to the car industry, the more the union heads want money force the workers(players to strike then watch as the country go belly up oh we done that why do you think china owns the US.

FJR

June 10th, 2011
11:17 am

tardawg,

The NFL is nothing like the car industry though. In the car industry, the owners pay for a gigantic amount of capital in plants and raw materials. In the car industry there are literally millions of other workers who could step in and do just as good of a job. Inthe car industry, people pay to have cars, not to watch the workers put cars together. That is, you’re paying for a product.

In the NFL, none of that is the case. Typically the public pays for the stadium. You want to just see a bunch of replacement players come in? Would you watch that? In the NFL, what you’re ultimately, as a fan paying for is the actual labor, not a finished product. You’re actually paying to see people do their jobs. Trying to analogize this to the car industry makes no sense, because in the auto industry, you don’t pay the workers to watch them put the cars together.

I don’t like unions in free markets. The problem with the NFL is that it’s not a free market in the first place. Because the owners want it that way. When you’re dealing with a non free market, you actually need unions. Yes, unions were bad for the auto industry, because the auto industry was a free market with lots of competition. That’s not the case in the NFL. Do you see car industries going out and signing mega pacts limiting how much they can spend on making their cars good? It would actually be illegal in the auto industry.

FJR

June 10th, 2011
11:20 am

Also, in the NFL, there is no price competition. The Falcons, for instance, can’t say “let’s charge less for TV time and see if we can’t pull some viewers away from the Redskins.” And if the Falcons lower tickets, they might get more fans in Atlanta, but they’re not going to be able to pull fans from Dallas because tickets are $10 cheaper. In the auto industry, a company is forced to sell their vehicle at as low of a price as possible, because another seller can undercut their price if they don’t. In the NFL that doesn’t happen. So that’s why unions don’t work in the auto industry. That doesn’t apply to the NFL.

PMC

June 10th, 2011
11:21 am

FJR, good points.

GEOFalcon

June 10th, 2011
11:31 am

FJR, THANK YOU!!! for TRYING to explain to the ‘masses” what is REALLY going on here. YES, the OWNERS locked out the players because the one BILLION DOLLARS of THE TOP is not enough for them. LISTEN ‘masses” the NFL is a 9 BILLION dollar a year business!!! AND GROWING!!! AGAIN, the OWNERS get 1 BILLION off the TOP!! And because they dont like the deal THEY SIGNED in ‘06′ now they want to CHANGE the deal !!!
AGAIN, THANKS FJR. And to the “masses” PLEASE !!!! WAKE UP!!!!! and READ / LEARN / KNOW the DETAILS!!!
PS:PAID Season ticket holder since 1994. Oh yes, Sir Arthur did NOT give my wife and I any break on these tickets, TWO PRE – SEASON games included in price.!!

ONE LAST THING; WHAT KIND OF PRODUCT (AT FULL TICKET PRICES) WILL WE BE GETTING ON THE FIELD IF / WHEN WE GET A SEASON THIS YEAR????????

GEOFalcon

June 10th, 2011
11:36 am

Enter your comments here

eM

June 10th, 2011
11:36 am

SeenThisB4

June 10th, 2011
8:06 am
The longer the lockout, the better the odds are that the free agency period will be rescinded, enabling the Saints to retain all their free agents! Long live the lockout!

You mean the same guys who lost to a 7-9 playoff team?

Larry

June 10th, 2011
11:41 am

FJR,

You’re absolutely correct about the simple fact that the NFL has the best of both worlds: a salary cap, the draft, restricted free agency and yet benefit from anti trust laws unlike any other industry. However, the one difference is this is a league of franchises that run a cooperative effort, unlike the auto or any other industry and this the anti trust protection

This is why the NFL is so successful versus MLB where teams in Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City struggle to sustain competitiveness every year. Further, what you fail to mention is how the NFL system has handed incredible riches to the NFL players. Just look up the average incomes for an NFL player and how much this income has increased as a percentage the past 5, 10, 15, 20 years and compare this to any other industry on the planet!

Most organizations have a cap of 40% of their gross revenue to be spent on compensation and benefits. That the NFL players want 55 even 60% of the entire gross revenue is utterly ridiculous when you consider that pay absolutely nothing for the operational costs of a franchise.

The bottom line is they are overpaid, those that pay this want it to be more fair, and the players and their idiotic leader are so greedy and selfish their lack of gratitude and selfishness is reprehensible.

DK

June 10th, 2011
11:54 am

@The Real Falcon – I have nothing more in common with the millionaire players than I do with the billionaire owners.

As far as being a union hater, what union are you talking about? NFL players have no union, remember? They want to be treated like a union when it suits them yet they want to claim they are not a union as soon as a downside to being a union comes up. The players are playing legal games here and have not genuinely disbanded the union. As you can see from Redman, the players still treat and think of the NFL Players Association as a union, but want to sue the owners when the owners treat the NFL Players Association as a union.

I want football in 2011. However, if I have to choose sides, I’ll choose the owners as they have the greater vested interest in seeing the league succeed long-term. Both sides are self-interested but the interests of the owners are more closely aligned with the long-term success of the league. If a player today helps set up a system that causes the league to fold in 10 years but enriches the players until that occurs, the current players’ interests are served while the owners will retain their interest in their club until they sell their interest or die. If they set up a system that rapes the league for ten years then causes the league to fold, the owners will lose as they lose their reversionary interest. Even if they could devise a system that would give the owners every dime of revenue generated (and that will NEVER happen), the lowest-valued team in the league would still lose money.

FJR

June 10th, 2011
12:01 pm

@DK

No team in the NFL comes anywhere close to losing money. The lowest valued team in teh league still makes tons of money. Why do you think the players keep clamoring for the owners to open up their books? Because everybody who has studied the league knows that every owner is making money, hand over fist.

After labor costs (that is AFTER you take out what they pay the players) the owners are making about 6 Billion. Most stadiums were publicly financed, so they’re not paying for that. They’re paying for upkeep, which is near pittance.

How in the world do you think that “Even if they could devise a system that would give the owners every dime of revenue generated, the lowest-valued team in the league would still lose money.”

You are crazy if you think that, you’re crazy if you think continuing the current deal (Which is all the players want) would “cause the league to fold” as well.

Ambiguously Gay

June 10th, 2011
12:26 pm

Ha, he looks like Sean Hayes (the guy from Will and Grace)

Ambiguously Awesome

June 10th, 2011
12:27 pm

Ha, he looks like the guy from Will and Grace (Sean Hayes)

DK

June 10th, 2011
12:27 pm

@GEOFalcon & FJR – You said, “In the NFL, none of that is the case. Typically the public pays for the stadium”

That trend is dying and was entirely true anyway. Most teams have had to agree to pay for a portion of these stadiums even in the good times. Now, cities, counties and states are start to demand that teams shoulder a greater share of these new stadiums and that is why the teams are wanting a greater share off the top to satisfy operating costs. The new Cowboys stadium cost $1.3 billion to build and the city of Arlington paid $325 million of that and they got the title to the stadium even though the Cowboys paid over three quarters of the stadium’s cost.

As far as a 50/50 split, how is that fair to the owners unless the operating costs of the teams and the league are also split 50/50 between the teams and the owners? This is why the teams take a billion off the top before splitting the remaining money.

@FJR – I’m a real estate appraiser by trade, and as such, I understand a discounted cash flow, do you? If the league split $9 billion 32 ways would yield approximately $850 million dollars in present value. This value exceeds the Forbes estimated value of only 2 of the 32 teams. Who’s crazy?

Of course the players want the current deal. When one side is satisfied with a deal and one is not that tells me that the satisfied party has the upper hand. I want to see a deal where neither side is happy. That would seem to indicate a fair deal.

DK

June 10th, 2011
12:28 pm

I meant “wasn’t entirely true anyway” Sorry.

FalconRed

June 10th, 2011
12:35 pm

Man, a lot of you guys are a whole lot smarter (or at least knowledgeable about this topic) than I am, but to a lot of us – we just want to see some good PROFESSIONAL football! We can see both sides have their points, but doesn’t it ultimately come down to ‘no one is being forced to play’? Sure, the NFL certainly has the best players in the game – but it’s the players choice to play or not. If the multi-million dollar players don’t like the rules they don’t have to play. There will always be someone there that will accept the rules for a lower wage. Sorry to use these players as examples but most of you can probably relate to this: say ‘big $$ Duanta’ won’t accept ‘the rules’ any longer and won’t play. There are a hundred players out there like Grimes that want to play football and are (maybe) just SLIGHTLY less talented.
Yes – I would watch professional football with a team full of ‘Grimes’ and not the ego’s and whining of the big $$ players (not saying Duanta has a big ego or is a whiner).
As a season ticket holder and life long fan of the Falcons, the longer this drags out the more likely I am to give up on PROFESSIONAL football (and the NFL in general). It will take YEARS for the sport to recover the trust of myself and many others that I’m sure feel much the same.

Rick B

June 10th, 2011
12:40 pm

Humm….., they don’t have a union any more. Such intellect.

ctfalconsfan

June 10th, 2011
1:10 pm

OK, here’s the plan

The owners should pay the players a few dollars. Let’s say the owners save 80% of their payroll by reducing the players salaries. Then reduce our ticket prices, beer prices and directv to watch ATL in CT and we got ourselves a deal..

At the end of the day it’s like that Seinfield show where Jerry said “You are really just cheering for the uniforms.”
If we have 2nd rate players wearing ATL uniforms playing against second rate players wearing Aints uniforms I’ll cheer, as I always do, for ATL….
But now my tix price would be $10…

It’s a WIN WIN for the owners and fans!!!

FJR

June 10th, 2011
1:13 pm

@DK

You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, because you didn’t specify over what time period you’re talking about, and 9 billion per year indefinitely comes out to WAY WAY more than 850 million per team. I have a master in applied math from Princeton, I know how to discount to present value.

At 20 years, 6 billion per year, with a 3% interest rate would be worth 89.26 billion dollars, which comes out to 2.89 Billion dollars per team. So just calculating the value over 20 years, assuming that the NFL never makes any more money than it currently does, you still WAY undervalued how much each team gets from the current deal.

Also, think about what you’re saying, you’re saying, essentially, that Forbes has miscalculated the worth of NFL franchises.

FJR

June 10th, 2011
1:16 pm

@DK

you’re also failing to consider that the individual franchises get to keep all the ticket sales, merchandise, etc. The only money they have to split is TV money. Not total revenues.

briz

June 10th, 2011
1:17 pm

Check out my new website for your daily links to the local markets coverage of your favorite sports teams. http://www.brizball.com

FJR

June 10th, 2011
1:23 pm

@DK

Give me the numbers you used to calculate your present worth of the current deal, because my trusty TI BA II Plus is telling me you’re way off.

ctfalconsfan

June 10th, 2011
1:35 pm

GEOFalcon you complain that the owners want more than $1 Billion off the top before they start to split with the players.

QUESTION: WHO PAYS FOR THE TEAM HEADQUARTERS, POWER , PHONE ALL NON-PLAYER SALARIES, TRAVEL, etc, etc..???

Does Matt Ryan cut any checks out of his pocket to have the practice field maintained?
Does Tony G, pay for the travel of all the Falcon scouts out there?
I’m sure John Abraham contributes heavily to all the Falcon staff’s health insurance! You think?

NOPE!! Mr. Blank cuts those checks my friend.

If the players want to split the REV 50/50 I SAY GREAT let’s also split the expenses 50/50 as well..

E-Roll

June 10th, 2011
1:42 pm

FJR I am going to tell you why you are worng. You are using logic to explain your point of view and not emotion. How DARE you confuse us with the truth, lol!!!!

Mark (another one)

June 10th, 2011
1:44 pm

I can’t wait for the season to start and watch Jerry Jones play against Arthur Blank. Oh, wait, they don’t get to play? Its supposed to be the football players?

The owners are just that owners. The players are entertainers. The entertainers have the right to negotiate for the best compensation they can get, and the owners have the right to say too much. Who cares? I don’t take sides. They need to figure it out and get back to football as that is the real business.

People say Blank is risking his own money. I do take issue with that. The stadium is owned by the state. If there’s no football, Blank stops paying to rent the stadium and the citizens of the state get stuck paying the bonds. I wonder what will get cut from the state budget to pay for an empty stadium? Education? Again? Oh, and Blank wants a new stadium at state expense so he can make more money. Sounds like a good deal to me, but only for Arthur.

The owners and players are the ones to lose. Neither side has anything to sell if they don’t get this deal done. Just get it done.