Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Quarterback

Message Board Member Opinion Challenge...

   74 members have voted

  1. 1. Whom is more to blame for the lack of progress?

    • The Players and DeMaurice Smith are more (not all) to blame.
    • The Owners and Roger Goodell are more (not all) to blame.

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

112 posts in this topic

The reason there is not a third option of "they both are equally to blame" is in each of the two options I clearly stated what I think nearly everyone agrees that neither side is 100% at fault. Both side are partly to blame and have made mistakes past and present

I believe forced to pick who is most at fault TODAY for the lack of progress will be telling.

I picked the Players and their adversarial litigator is primarily inhibiting negotiations and a deal at this time and this day forward is much more important that what has transpired in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason there is not a third option of "they both are equally to blame" is in each of the two options I clearly stated what I think nearly everyone agrees that neither side is 100% at fault. Both side are partly to blame and have made mistakes past and present

I believe forced to pick who is most at fault TODAY for the lack of progress will be telling.

I picked the Players and their adversarial litigator is primarily inhibiting negotiations and a deal at this time and this day forward is much more important that what has transpired in the past.

I agree with you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so close to 50/50 on this one but I have to say players based on the "TODAY" aspect of it. Over the last few months it really seems (not by what's being said but by actions) that the owners are more willing to sit down and work things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so close to 50/50 on this one but I have to say players based on the "TODAY" aspect of it. Over the last few months it really seems (not by what's being said but by actions) that the owners are more willing to sit down and work things out.

Concur!

The owners are to blame for agreeing to deal they didn't like from the beginning; the players are more to blame TODAY for not expressing any willingness to compromise or negotiate. We cannot change the mistakes or decisions of the past; we CAN effect change moving forward!

Thanks for participating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players and Memaurice are mostly to blame.

They could have come to the table back in March and argued out a new CBA. The Owners were waiting.

But nooooooo. They had to decertify so they could file all those antitrust lawsuits.

I still dont think many people understand what will happen to the NFL, as we know it, if those law-suits go through.

skn likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I even have to state my opinion? lol.

I am going Owners deserve more of the blame. As others have said, they should have come to the table earlier. Players were at the table from the start, and I will agree it is starting to turn to Players fault, but I dont think the Owners gave a real good deal until recently. I have been reading that the Ruling could Screw up both sides, so the courts want them to get it fixed before the ruling.

I still feel like the owners, if they wanted to, could have been more upfront with the players and gotten this deal done a long time ago.

Atl/0 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going Owners deserve more of the blame. As others have said, they should have come to the table earlier. Players were at the table from the start

That statement alone tells me, and everyone else, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The owners were the ones at the table with an offer back in March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners, if they really addressed what I feel is the REAL issue instead of going after the player's we wouldn't be here.

The elephant in the room (and I think I've seen maybe 1 or 2 articles mention this) is the big market teams vs. the small market teams and the fact that regardless of how successful or unsuccessful they've been they have to split the pot evenly. Instead of turning on each other though they adopted to take the approach of going after the player's share by asking for an additional billion of the top. Sound strategy as it's hard to unify that many players with much less income, etc. However, the players have proven to be much smarter than the owners anticipated. Not sure how it will all play out but I think the owners expected the NFLPA to "take their word for it" and that didn't happen.

Mid-Nite-Toker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That statement alone tells me, and everyone else, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The owners were the ones at the table with an offer back in March.

Your post shows me how misinformed you really are. I understand why you did not respond to my claims with facts now.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/393280-nfl-rejects-latest-nflpa-offer-still-not-taking-negotiations-seriously

The article is dated May 17, 2010. Which pwns you and proves my statement correct. Now I have to go watch WWDC and get my nerd on.

Born-a-Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post shows me how misinformed you really are. I understand why you did not respond to my claims with facts now.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/393280-nfl-rejects-latest-nflpa-offer-still-not-taking-negotiations-seriously

The article is dated May 17, 2010. Which pwns you and proves my statement correct. Now I have to go watch WWDC and get my nerd on.

:lol:

Um...first of all....

This post stinks of pro-player bias and bad writing.

A Bleacherreport article is the foundation for your arguments??!!! Really??! :lol::rolleyes:

Well...that explains alot. LMAO!

Tandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I believe both sides are to blame for this mess, with the owners going behind the players backs with that TV lawsuit may have frosted NFLPA's backside the wrong way. Hard to build trust if one side tries something like that.

Born-a-Falcon and slamee101 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure, there will be no negotiating without both sides setting down to talk out terms of a new agreement.

I chose the Players and DeMaurice Smith as being most at fault at the present, only because most of what I have heard is their latest attempt in court to overturn the lockout , lawyers following it said there is no way the lockout gets overturned by the players at this point in time based on their arguements, they said it was mostly because it's already been ruled a labor dispute and not a legal dispute.

Anybody else hear this? Is this correct? Perhaps I heard that wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Um...first of all....

This post stinks of pro-player bias and bad writing.

A Bleacherreport article is the foundation for your arguments??!!! Really??! :lol::rolleyes:

Well...that explains alot. LMAO!

Why I am not surprised you belittle facts that do not agree with you.

Who cares about the bias or writing. It has nothing to do with my argument.

My claim: Players were at the table from the start

Your response: BS They werent there in March

My response: Article showing a date and stating the the NFL rejected An offer by the NFLPA.

Now you cant handle being wrong, so you belittle the facts. My claim has nothing to do with the article itself. The Date and it stating that the NFLPA made an offer are enough to prove my point.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/11/16/reports-nflpa-offers-counterproposal-to-18-game-sc

how about this link. dated Nov 16 2010. still before March.

Born-a-Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the state of negotiations, lack of CBA, both sides are equally to blame.

The fact that there might be no football? 100% on the owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's remember that the players believe the lockout to be in violation of antitrust laws and that's why they filed lawsuits.

if there was no lockout, there would be no lawsuits.

falwalk likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that there might be no football? 100% on the owners.

yep, if the owners decide to lift the lockout there will be football. football doesn't need a CBA now.

falwalk likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the "Both sides are r-tards and they better put on their Big Boy Pants and get this solved" option ?

There's blame on both sides. My 6 year old could have solved this issue before playground time this morning.

FA91 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners, if they really addressed what I feel is the REAL issue instead of going after the player's we wouldn't be here.

The elephant in the room (and I think I've seen maybe 1 or 2 articles mention this) is the big market teams vs. the small market teams and the fact that regardless of how successful or unsuccessful they've been they have to split the pot evenly. Instead of turning on each other though they adopted to take the approach of going after the player's share by asking for an additional billion of the top. Sound strategy as it's hard to unify that many players with much less income, etc. However, the players have proven to be much smarter than the owners anticipated. Not sure how it will all play out but I think the owners expected the NFLPA to "take their word for it" and that didn't happen.

You make an interesting point about the revneu sharing. Despite revneu sharing, there is a significant difference bettween the bigger/richer teams and the smaller, less successful ones - depended largely on their stadium deals.

In 2006 resolving these differecnes was THE key issue, and is took extensive discussions between owners to come up with financial arrangements to help bridge the gap between the small teams and the richer one - to enable the smaller market teams to be able to afford the 2006 CBA. This time, as you say, that ssue has been largely ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBA was opted out of two years ago and neither side thought it was worth negotiating until 1 year, eleven months, 29 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds passed?

Both sides.Neither side can claim good faith.

That's a slight exaggeration on the timeline, but not by much

Geneaut, kschreck and ukfalc like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBA was opted out of two years ago and neither side thought it was worth negotiating until 1 year, eleven months, 29 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds passed?

Both sides.Neither side can claim good faith.

That's a slight exaggeration on the timeline, but not by much

**** someone neg me. I tried to +1 but i accidentally hit -1.

Born-a-Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the state of negotiations, lack of CBA, both sides are equally to blame.

The fact that there might be no football? 100% on the owners.

you can't seperate these two things. Wihtout a CBA, there is no football and can not be any football.

Therefore, the person/persons to blame are those who we feel are responsible for them not being able to reach a new CBA and why the state of negotiations currently aren't bringing us closer to producing one. IMO their is more fault in Demaurice smith and the NFLPA for the current state of litigation and lack of negotiation.

Since it is has been made well known that the players have not been willing to budge one iota on the financials or revenue split, that fact alone means it would be impossible to continue football and try to negotiate a deal on the side. The players have no incentive to negotiate or concede anything. So, the lockout was and is the only option the owners had to convince a party unwilling to negotiate or concede to actually negotiate.

Had the owners locked the players out and the NFLPA did not decertify and did not sue the league, i would be on the side of the players. However, if you still truly believe with the players unwillingness to make concessions to anything other than the previous CBA that they could have negotiated a new CBA without the possibility of a work stoppage, your sense of perspecitive and naievity is beyond reason.

ukfalc and HouseofEuphoria like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, if the owners decide to lift the lockout there will be football. football doesn't need a CBA now.

Football ABSOLUTELY needs a CBA. If the NFL went on operating even based on the rules of the old CBA they open themselves up to anti-trust lawsuits.

The only reason they've not been subject to anti-trust lawsuit prior to now is due to the fact they had a mutually agreed upon CBA. Once that CBA expires or is opted out of it is null.

Then you have a pandora's box of issues.

The players can sue over the draft, transitions and franchise tags, and even ERFA, and RFA tags.

They need to lock themselves in a room and get it resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't seperate these two things. Wihtout a CBA, there is no football and can not be any football.

Therefore, the person/persons to blame are those who we feel are responsible for them not being able to reach a new CBA and why the state of negotiations currently aren't bringing us closer to producing one. IMO their is more fault in Demaurice smith and the NFLPA for the current state of litigation and lack of negotiation.

Since it is has been made well known that the players have not been willing to budge one iota on the financials or revenue split, that fact alone means it would be impossible to continue football and try to negotiate a deal on the side. The players have no incentive to negotiate or concede anything. So, the lockout was and is the only option the owners had to convince a party unwilling to negotiate or concede to actually negotiate.

Had the owners locked the players out and the NFLPA did not decertify and did not sue the league, i would be on the side of the players. However, if you still truly believe with the players unwillingness to make concessions to anything other than the previous CBA that they could have negotiated a new CBA without the possibility of a work stoppage, your sense of perspecitive and naievity is beyond reason.

Can you please prove with facts that we need a CBA to have football. We didnt really have a CBA last season and football still went on. 2nd of all the lawsuit originally is to have the lockout abolished and work under old CBA rules, so basically rules of last year until the deal is done.

The Owners could have opened the books to prove their case, which was a card they had the whole time. The Lockout is a card to gain leverage, not negotiate on good faith. The decertifying and lawsuit are tools used to defend against the lockout. they hold no weight if you have no lockout. I have proven that the NFLPA was at the table back in 2010.

The players and owners have made concessions and while the latter has made larger ones, both sides seem to still be not willing to make large enough ones to get the deal done. BUT.. I think that has changed with the news that neither side is going to like the court ruling, which from the article i read will be Lockout still one and NFLPA cant sue for 6 months, but after the 6 months they can sue for triple what was lost for a full year of no football.

No Lockout = No Lawsuit/Decertifying. So being mad at the players seems asinine for trying their only card to end the lockout. I agree the secondary lawsuit is rubbish, but the original one is a legitimate one.

slamee101 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites