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

I would say that opting out, and using extortion as a tactic to get your way, is pretty much the same thing. Maybe not technically, but the damage in terms of the relationship is pretty much the same. They were doing this while they were conspiring to get paid so they could fund what they are threatening. Either way, it did tremendous damage to the owners ability to bargain in good faith. The way they handled it, might as well be reneging.

So locking out the players in repsonse to an anti-trust lawsuit is "extortion", but threatening to decertify unless the other side meet your ridiculous demands for 10 year financial and then decrtifiying anf issuing an anti-trust cliam that challenges the foundations of the sport, isn't?

At least the owners made an offer, and made significant concessions during negotiations, lowering their initial demands for an addtional $1bn, by over $500m and making significant concessions on every other issue. The players can't say likewise, and they are the ones who walked away from the negotiations on March 11th.

Falcons42 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So locking out the players in repsonse to an anti-trust lawsuit is "extortion", but threatening to decertify unless the other side meet your ridiculous demands for 10 year financial and then decrtifiying anf issuing an anti-trust cliam that challenges the foundations of the sport, isn't?

At least the owners made an offer, and made significant concessions during negotiations, lowering their initial demands for an addtional $1bn, by over $500m and making significant concessions on every other issue. The players can't say likewise, and they are the ones who walked away from the negotiations on March 11th.

The NFL has dealt with these suits before, without locking anyone out. Even though the players were striking, the doors were never locked. The NFL was in court for nearly 2 years while football was being played in some form back from 87-89. That crushes any argument that football can't be played, just like it could if the courts overturn the lockout.

And you know **** well why the players walked away and decertified, they had to. You've admitted as much. You seem to ignore all the attempts made by the players prior to March 11, when the owners were the ones stalling. You knock the players for not negotiating now, when they actually are, literally right now, but you have no issue with the owners doing nothing until the last minute. The owners planned for and wanted this lockout the entire time. They had 3 effing years to come to terms, but they were too busy planning this farce. There is direct evidence of it. It forced the players hand, not the other way around.

When someone is caught in a conspiracy, like the owners were in the Doty ruling, they better **** well open up all the books. The owners have shown zero reason to be trusted. There is no telling what they have done if they are capable of what they have proven to have in court.

I call it extortion, because it very well could be. Maybe there is a prettier, more "businessy" word for it, but it is. The players are playing defense.

The NFL wanted to extend talks to keep them from having the time to stop a lockout. Not because they had any real offer. Just because there was no coutner doesn't mean they aren't negotating. The offers are just PR ploys. The lack of a counter just means the owners aren't addressing the point of contention.

All you are doing is spouting off what the NFL is saying. They obviously can't be trusted. Pash's statements about backing Goodell are damning. The owners are in the wrong, and don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL has dealt with these suits before, without locking anyone out. Even though the players were striking, the doors were never locked. The NFL was in court for nearly 2 years while football was being played in some form back from 87-89. That crushes any argument that football can't be played, just like it could if the courts overturn the lockout.

And you know **** well why the players walked away and decertified, they had to. You've admitted as much. You seem to ignore all the attempts made by the players prior to March 11, when the owners were the ones stalling. You knock the players for not negotiating now, when they actually are, literally right now, but you have no issue with the owners doing nothing until the last minute. The owners planned for and wanted this lockout the entire time. They had 3 effing years to come to terms, but they were too busy planning this farce. There is direct evidence of it. It forced the players hand, not the other way around.

When someone is caught in a conspiracy, like the owners were in the Doty ruling, they better **** well open up all the books. The owners have shown zero reason to be trusted. There is no telling what they have done if they are capable of what they have proven to have in court.

I call it extortion, because it very well could be. Maybe there is a prettier, more "businessy" word for it, but it is. The players are playing defense.

The NFL wanted to extend talks to keep them from having the time to stop a lockout. Not because they had any real offer. Just because there was no coutner doesn't mean they aren't negotating. The offers are just PR ploys. The lack of a counter just means the owners aren't addressing the point of contention.

All you are doing is spouting off what the NFL is saying. They obviously can't be trusted. Pash's statements about backing Goodell are damning. The owners are in the wrong, and don't care.

The players agreed to this option beforehand that the owners, per the mutually agreed upon and signed agreement, rightfully exercised. Reneging and extortion are therefore factually incorrect and outrageous claims.

The underlying and pervasive theme to your perpetual anti ownership argument is you simply are for labor and against management/ownership in principle. This is why, despite some very intelligent and persuasive arguments, you haven't come close to moving pro ownership positions one iota toward you position. I get the impression that you actually hate owners/management regardless of the facts or detail. Extortion? Come on!

For me it is very, very simple. I believe in the basic principle of ownership rights, I believe work is a privilege--not a right, I believe the NFL players are already paid multiple times more than their true worth (as compared to all other professions), and I would like more of this revenue that is paid to the players to be invested back toward the fans (the customers who fund all of this anyway) in the form of better ticket pricing, lower concession costs, better parking facilities, better and more comfortable seating in the Dome, and to stop burdening the tax payers for newer facilities.

ukfalc and Falcons42 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL has dealt with these suits before, without locking anyone out. Even though the players were striking, the doors were never locked. The NFL was in court for nearly 2 years while football was being played in some form back from 87-89. That crushes any argument that football can't be played, just like it could if the courts overturn the lockout.

And you know **** well why the players walked away and decertified, they had to. You've admitted as much. You seem to ignore all the attempts made by the players prior to March 11, when the owners were the ones stalling. You knock the players for not negotiating now, when they actually are, literally right now, but you have no issue with the owners doing nothing until the last minute. The owners planned for and wanted this lockout the entire time. They had 3 effing years to come to terms, but they were too busy planning this farce. There is direct evidence of it. It forced the players hand, not the other way around.

When someone is caught in a conspiracy, like the owners were in the Doty ruling, they better **** well open up all the books. The owners have shown zero reason to be trusted. There is no telling what they have done if they are capable of what they have proven to have in court.

I call it extortion, because it very well could be. Maybe there is a prettier, more "businessy" word for it, but it is. The players are playing defense.

The NFL wanted to extend talks to keep them from having the time to stop a lockout. Not because they had any real offer. Just because there was no coutner doesn't mean they aren't negotating. The offers are just PR ploys. The lack of a counter just means the owners aren't addressing the point of contention.

All you are doing is spouting off what the NFL is saying. They obviously can't be trusted. Pash's statements about backing Goodell are damning. The owners are in the wrong, and don't care.

The players are just as guilty as the owners of delaying and not negotiating sooner. I don't recall the NFLPA demanding to start negoitations for the last 3 years, and the league refusing. Both parties sat on their hands for 30 months.

The players planned for the current scenario just as much as the owners did. They hired a litigator 2 years ago, they built up a lockout fund and spend the 2010 season visiting the 32 teams to get the votes necessary to decertify.

Your statement that "the NFL wanted to extend talks to keep them from having the time to stop a lockout" is total specualtion on your part, and a ridiculous statement. The timescales within which the players' injunction application has been dealt, clealry show that extending the CBA for a week (or even a month) to continue negotiations wouldn't have prevented the players from being able to try to stop any lockout.

The NFLPA are in no psotion to say that it wasnt a "real" offer, because they did nothing to test the offer. They didn't even have the courtesy to properly consider or formally respond to the offer. If they wanted to find out if it was real - and if they wanted to negotiate a settlement - they would have agreed to extend the CBA for a week, taken the weekend to fully consider the offer, and gone back to the owners with a counter-offer or for further dicussions around the terms. If nothing else, that would have demonstared a willingness to consider offers and a geuine desire to exhaust the negotiation options. Just saying no without even taking time to properly consider it isn't negotiating, let alone doing so "in good faith".

I do have several issues with the way the owner have dealt with much of this. Unlike you, I don't put the blame 100% on one side, or think that one side have behaved like angels. If players have the moral high ground on any issue its the TV contract money (IF Doty's ruling holds up on appeal), but they lost any claims to the moral high ground on March 11th: when it was clear that the owners made much greater concessions to resolve the issue that the players did. The player couldn't even come up with a coherent and sensible rebuttal of the owners' offer. Their post decertifiaction statement about the offer, was laughable.

The argument that the owners should continue playing and negotiating without leverage is ridiculous. Maybe the owners didn't "have to" lockout, but they would have been idiots not to in the circumstances. Then again, strictly speaking the players didn't "have to" decertify, or bring anti-trust claims challenging the draft, cap and FA rules. You can't have it both ways. You can't support the players for seeking leverage, whilst attacking the other for doing likewise. The reality was, that in the absence of a negotiated CBA, both sides were always going to do what they did, as each had too much to risk/lose by not doing so. The real shame, is that both sides didn't do a LOT more to try to prevent it from happening.

Falcons42 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks this is the players fault has their head in the sand or up their *SS.

Sure you could accuse the players of being stubborn to the aggreement the owners presented to them but . . .

THE OWNERS RENIGGED ON THE INITIAL DEAL TO BEGIN WITH.

The owners were the ones who wanted to REnegotiate. The players simply wanted to keep WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD.

Any of you would have done the same if you already had a contract with your employer and the boss wanted to rework a NEW deal that was LESS that what you INITIALLY agreed to.

For all of you who claim you are concerned for all the other parties who could be financially harmed because of this, REALIZE THE OWNERS KNEW THAT THOSE OTHER PARTIES WOULD BE EFFECTED AND COULD HAVE CARED LESS. The owners KNEW they had leverage because any of them have more money than any single player let alone the ENTIRE NFL and they PURPOSELY took action to have a work stoppage because they could win the waiting game because they HAVE MORE MONEY AND MORE LEVERAGE TO SIT AND WAIT TO GET THEIR WAY.

An agreement is an agreement folks. IF you want a new agreement then you let the old one EXPIRE first. None of this REnegotiation BS.

The players are NOT holding out because they want more it is the OWNERS WHO WANT MORE.

The owners didn't renig. There was an opt out clause and they exercised the clause. They did so b/c it was a bad deal to begin with. If you want to blame the owners for anything, blame them for signing a bad deal in the first place. The funny thing is that the Bills owner got made fun of for voting against this deal. Turns out he was the smart one.

This is why it's important to get a win/win for both sides. B/c if one side wins the other loses and we'll be back here again in a few years.

Falcons42 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players are just as guilty as the owners of delaying and not negotiating sooner. I don't recall the NFLPA demanding to start negoitations for the last 3 years, and the league refusing. Both parties sat on their hands for 30 months.

The players planned for the current scenario just as much as the owners did. They hired a litigator 2 years ago, they built up a lockout fund and spend the 2010 season visiting the 32 teams to get the votes necessary to decertify.

Wrong. The NFLPA asked for NFL to show them financial justification 2 years ago. They also were desperate to get a deal done before the uncapped year in 2010. They didn't think it was fair to have an unfloored cap and thought it would be detrimental to veteran players. Smith was arguing that 2 years ago.

Link

Link

If they were so deadset on decertification, why didn't they try before the 2010 rules came into effect? You notice you called it a "LOCKOUT" Fund, not a DECERTIFICATION fund, or a STRIKE fund. You prove this in your own words. The owners have been threatening lockout since shortly after the opt out. Pash's comments about standing behind Goodell prove it was always intended. It would have been irresponsible for the Union not to prepare for worst case scenario. Every union has to prepare for something like this amidst labor conflict.

Your statement that "the NFL wanted to extend talks to keep them from having the time to stop a lockout" is total specualtion on your part, and a ridiculous statement. The timescales within which the players' injunction application has been dealt, clealry show that extending the CBA for a week (or even a month) to continue negotiations wouldn't have prevented the players from being able to try to stop any lockout.

No more ridiculous than the accusations against Smith. As if he was singlehandedly locking out the players. The NFL refused to open the books, they refused to prove there was justification. The players originally asked for 20 years of profit and revenue. They were willing to meet half way. The owners would only give revenue, and only for a quarter for what was requested originally. If the owners are trying to prove that the CBA was unsustainable, why are they hiding the profit info? They obviously are making deals behind the players' backs, why should the NFL be trusted? Talk about ridiculous. Just because you take the NFL at it's word, doesn't mean the players should.

The NFLPA are in no psotion to say that it wasnt a "real" offer, because they did nothing to test the offer. They didn't even have the courtesy to properly consider or formally respond to the offer. If they wanted to find out if it was real - and if they wanted to negotiate a settlement - they would have agreed to extend the CBA for a week, taken the weekend to fully consider the offer, and gone back to the owners with a counter-offer or for further dicussions around the terms. If nothing else, that would have demonstared a willingness to consider offers and a geuine desire to exhaust the negotiation options. Just saying no without even taking time to properly consider it isn't negotiating, let alone doing so "in good faith".

I do have several issues with the way the owner have dealt with much of this. Unlike you, I don't put the blame 100% on one side, or think that one side have behaved like angels. If players have the moral high ground on any issue its the TV contract money (IF Doty's ruling holds up on appeal), but they lost any claims to the moral high ground on March 11th: when it was clear that the owners made much greater concessions to resolve the issue that the players did. The player couldn't even come up with a coherent and sensible rebuttal of the owners' offer. Their post decertifiaction statement about the offer, was laughable.

The argument that the owners should continue playing and negotiating without leverage is ridiculous. Maybe the owners didn't "have to" lockout, but they would have been idiots not to in the circumstances. Then again, strictly speaking the players didn't "have to" decertify, or bring anti-trust claims challenging the draft, cap and FA rules. You can't have it both ways. You can't support the players for seeking leverage, whilst attacking the other for doing likewise. The reality was, that in the absence of a negotiated CBA, both sides were always going to do what they did, as each had too much to risk/lose by not doing so. The real shame, is that both sides didn't do a LOT more to try to prevent it from happening.

You have not been reading what I've been saying. I agree that there is mutual blame on the state of negotiations, lack of a CBA, and the general nastiness between sides. That said, the lockout is 100% the choice of the owners. That is inescapable. If the courts rule that the lockout must end, and the owners and NFLPA can't come to an agreement, what do the owners do? None of you pro-owner types have been able to answer that. You can't because it absolutely takes your argument apart that there has to a lockout, as if there can't be a season without a CBA.

Why is it such a terrible thing for the NFLPA to walk away, when the NFL did the same thing?

Link

You are being a hypocrite. The NFL gives and unreasonable offer, and it must be considered. The NFLPA does and it's a joke. Like I said the players could have decertified over a year and a half ago. They didn't. I think having the option for 2 years, and waiting so they would have a 6 month cushion in a very tedious , deliberate legal system to get football back on time is more than reasonable. The owners made a lockout deal with the Broadcasters, got an uncapped season to save money, and now get to layoff and furlough workers while selling tickets. Sorry, but the NFL actions are offensive, the NFLPA's decertification is their only defense.It's pretty obvious the owners aren't going to take a reasonable deal when they can force a better one. I hope I'm wrong, apparently both sides are talking, so pretty much everything you've argued before isn't correct either. The NFL can talk to a decertified union, and De Smith isn't the stubborn monster you and your gang of NFL PR spokesmen have argued he was. So hopefully we won't have to actually suffer your precious lockout.

Mid-Nite-Toker and GEORGIAfan like 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.

+1

This is the real reason for the lockout...the blame lies at the feet of the owners.

My link

paulitik and GEORGIAfan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL has dealt with these suits before, without locking anyone out. Even though the players were striking, the doors were never locked. The NFL was in court for nearly 2 years while football was being played in some form back from 87-89. That crushes any argument that football can't be played, just like it could if the courts overturn the lockout.

And you know **** well why the players walked away and decertified, they had to. You've admitted as much. You seem to ignore all the attempts made by the players prior to March 11, when the owners were the ones stalling. You knock the players for not negotiating now, when they actually are, literally right now, but you have no issue with the owners doing nothing until the last minute. The owners planned for and wanted this lockout the entire time. They had 3 effing years to come to terms, but they were too busy planning this farce. There is direct evidence of it. It forced the players hand, not the other way around.

When someone is caught in a conspiracy, like the owners were in the Doty ruling, they better **** well open up all the books. The owners have shown zero reason to be trusted. There is no telling what they have done if they are capable of what they have proven to have in court.

I call it extortion, because it very well could be. Maybe there is a prettier, more "businessy" word for it, but it is. The players are playing defense.

The NFL wanted to extend talks to keep them from having the time to stop a lockout. Not because they had any real offer. Just because there was no coutner doesn't mean they aren't negotating. The offers are just PR ploys. The lack of a counter just means the owners aren't addressing the point of contention.

All you are doing is spouting off what the NFL is saying. They obviously can't be trusted. Pash's statements about backing Goodell are damning. The owners are in the wrong, and don't care.

"Dam* the facts, full speed ahead!!!"

You have pretty much flat out stated in this thread that you just hate the owners and don't care. The opt out is part of the contract? Don't care, its still extortion and reneging!! Players decertified first? Doesn't matter!!!!

Etcetera.

GEORGIAfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. The NFLPA asked for NFL to show them financial justification 2 years ago. They also were desperate to get a deal done before the uncapped year in 2010. They didn't think it was fair to have an unfloored cap and thought it would be detrimental to veteran players. Smith was arguing that 2 years ago.

Link

Link

If they were so deadset on decertification, why didn't they try before the 2010 rules came into effect? You notice you called it a "LOCKOUT" Fund, not a DECERTIFICATION fund, or a STRIKE fund. You prove this in your own words. The owners have been threatening lockout since shortly after the opt out. Pash's comments about standing behind Goodell prove it was always intended. It would have been irresponsible for the Union not to prepare for worst case scenario. Every union has to prepare for something like this amidst labor conflict.

No more ridiculous than the accusations against Smith. As if he was singlehandedly locking out the players. The NFL refused to open the books, they refused to prove there was justification. The players originally asked for 20 years of profit and revenue. They were willing to meet half way. The owners would only give revenue, and only for a quarter for what was requested originally. If the owners are trying to prove that the CBA was unsustainable, why are they hiding the profit info? They obviously are making deals behind the players' backs, why should the NFL be trusted? Talk about ridiculous. Just because you take the NFL at it's word, doesn't mean the players should.

You have not been reading what I've been saying. I agree that there is mutual blame on the state of negotiations, lack of a CBA, and the general nastiness between sides. That said, the lockout is 100% the choice of the owners. That is inescapable. If the courts rule that the lockout must end, and the owners and NFLPA can't come to an agreement, what do the owners do? None of you pro-owner types have been able to answer that. You can't because it absolutely takes your argument apart that there has to a lockout, as if there can't be a season without a CBA.

Why is it such a terrible thing for the NFLPA to walk away, when the NFL did the same thing?

Link

You are being a hypocrite. The NFL gives and unreasonable offer, and it must be considered. The NFLPA does and it's a joke. Like I said the players could have decertified over a year and a half ago. They didn't. I think having the option for 2 years, and waiting so they would have a 6 month cushion in a very tedious , deliberate legal system to get football back on time is more than reasonable. The owners made a lockout deal with the Broadcasters, got an uncapped season to save money, and now get to layoff and furlough workers while selling tickets. Sorry, but the NFL actions are offensive, the NFLPA's decertification is their only defense.It's pretty obvious the owners aren't going to take a reasonable deal when they can force a better one. I hope I'm wrong, apparently both sides are talking, so pretty much everything you've argued before isn't correct either. The NFL can talk to a decertified union, and De Smith isn't the stubborn monster you and your gang of NFL PR spokesmen have argued he was. So hopefully we won't have to actually suffer your precious lockout.

The Owners could have locked out two years ago. . .

Right?

And I am sorry, however many times you snidely mention it, the players have no moral, ethical, legal, or any other type of right whatsoever to see the owners books. period.

falcons faithful likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Owners could have locked out two years ago. . .

Right?

And I am sorry, however many times you snidely mention it, the players have no moral, ethical, legal, or any other type of right whatsoever to see the owners books. period.

100% agree and the last time the NFLPA walked out of Negations it was because the Owners said not to showing the books. All the people in favor of the NFlPA fail to understand it. Like I have said many times go ask your employer to see his books and let me know how that works out for ya.

Say what you want bout the players are or are not employees if you get paid by an organization to do a job your an employee

chifalc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Owners could have locked out two years ago. . .

Right?

And I am sorry, however many times you snidely mention it, the players have no moral, ethical, legal, or any other type of right whatsoever to see the owners books. period.

Why do you keep saying that last part. No one is questioning the morality, legality or ethicalness of owners showing the books. You added nothing to the conversation. You have become a broken record. This deal has nothing to do with moral, ethical , legal or any other type of right, so you bring that up does not add to the conversation. If the owners wanted to truly get a deal done, then they would give the information in good faith to get the deal done. I mean RG has said they are partners.

How can you expect the players to take a bad deal or change their stance from the previous CBA, when the owners are not willing to give them information proving that it is unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree and the last time the NFLPA walked out of Negations it was because the Owners said not to showing the books. All the people in favor of the NFlPA fail to understand it. Like I have said many times go ask your employer to see his books and let me know how that works out for ya.

Say what you want bout the players are or are not employees if you get paid by an organization to do a job your an employee

My employer shows us the books pretty much every quarter. The owners were caught making a deal, and possibly violating the previous CBA in that deal. It proves absolutely the Owners can't be trusted. If the owners are that concerned about the sanctity of the cap, the draft, revenue sharing, opening the books would be an obvious step to save what they are so fearful what they are going to lose.

I don't like what the players are doing in terms of possibly attacking those things, but I don't blame them. The owners actions are inexcusable. They have handled nearly every aspect of this terribly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Owners could have locked out two years ago. . .

Right?

And I am sorry, however many times you snidely mention it, the players have no moral, ethical, legal, or any other type of right whatsoever to see the owners books. period.

Dude, you are a total lost cause. You want to talk ethics? The lockout insurance the owners made behind the player's backs justifies the request for the books. The owners are hiding something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep saying that last part. No one is questioning the morality, legality or ethicalness of owners showing the books. You added nothing to the conversation. You have become a broken record. This deal has nothing to do with moral, ethical , legal or any other type of right, so you bring that up does not add to the conversation. If the owners wanted to truly get a deal done, then they would give the information in good faith to get the deal done. I mean RG has said they are partners.

How can you expect the players to take a bad deal or change their stance from the previous CBA, when the owners are not willing to give them information proving that it is unsustainable.

SO you are saying the players have a right to information they have no right to, and owners are unreasonable for not giving them information they shouldn't have?

YOu want a broken record, how about "They should just open their books"?

HouseofEuphoria likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My employer shows us the books pretty much every quarter. The owners were caught making a deal, and possibly violating the previous CBA in that deal. It proves absolutely the Owners can't be trusted. If the owners are that concerned about the sanctity of the cap, the draft, revenue sharing, opening the books would be an obvious step to save what they are so fearful what they are going to lose.

I don't like what the players are doing in terms of possibly attacking those things, but I don't blame them. The owners actions are inexcusable. They have handled nearly every aspect of this terribly.

They players are at a minimum equally fault, no matter how white-hot your hatred of ownership remains,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep saying that last part. No one is questioning the morality, legality or ethicalness of owners showing the books. You added nothing to the conversation. You have become a broken record. This deal has nothing to do with moral, ethical , legal or any other type of right, so you bring that up does not add to the conversation. If the owners wanted to truly get a deal done, then they would give the information in good faith to get the deal done. I mean RG has said they are partners.

How can you expect the players to take a bad deal or change their stance from the previous CBA, when the owners are not willing to give them information proving that it is unsustainable.

You and I both know that Goodell used the term "partners" figuratively, not literally. By definition, a real business partnership between two entities share in the profits, losses, expenses, etc in a business. The players are W2 or 1099 employees who receive salaries and bonuses, all expenses paid, paid medical, and contribute nothing toward expenses, capital expenditures, or in any way responsible for a negative balance sheet.

In business leadership roles I have use the term "partners" or "teammates" on numerous occasions in that we are on a common mission or common goal and this is all Goodell was saying.

As has been said many times, as employees they have absolute no right to see any books unless they are monetarily invested shareholders sharing in the profits and losses of the business. Sure the owners could voluntarily open up their books entirely but by doing so they would have to reveal every single penny spent for everything and all they would accomplish by doing this is give their employees (players) confidential expenditures that they haven't the business background or experience to understand and this would open up many more arguments about "well, why did you buy that, or spend that much." It would lead to a nightmare!

The bottom line is the players are overpaid for their services (most companies have a maximum cap of 40% of total gross revenue should be spent on all compensation and benefits in order to be profitable and sustain growth), the owners blue it by signing off on this deal to begin with, the owners, as a group are idiots for awarding these ridiculous contracts, but at the end of the day it is their business to operate it as they deem appropriate and they have every right to make a correction at this time and they have exercised their contractual right to do so.

The players are not coming from a position of gratitude or logic (they're overpaid), they simply do not want to give up what they shouldn't have received in the first place so the greedy and ungrateful dolts are biting the hand that feeds them with no regard for the financial short and long term health of their franchise or the National Football League.

I hope this all gets settled to everyone's satisfaction and we can all get back to arguing over the play calling, or BVG losing a game late because of his 3 man rush. However, if this continues 2-3 more months, I would personally find some pleasure watching some of these clowns miss a few of their ridiculous checks and having their wives or girlfriends make them beg for their privileged jobs back. I for one would welcome replacement players who would be more than happy to play for a paycheck and the chance to make the team with their play.

<H2>

<H2>

</H2></H2>Partnership:

A partnership is the relationship existing between two or more persons who join to carry on a trade or business. Each person contributes money, property, labor or skill, and expects to share in the profits and losses of the business.

A partnership must file an annual information return to report the income, deductions, gains, losses, etc., from its operations, but it does not pay income tax. Instead, it "passes through" any profits or losses to its partners. Each partner includes his or her share of the partnership's income or loss on his or her tax return.

Partners are not employees and should not be issued a Form W-2. The partnership must furnish copies of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) to the partners by the date Form 1065 is required to be filed, including extensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My employer shows us the books pretty much every quarter. The owners were caught making a deal, and possibly violating the previous CBA in that deal. It proves absolutely the Owners can't be trusted. If the owners are that concerned about the sanctity of the cap, the draft, revenue sharing, opening the books would be an obvious step to save what they are so fearful what they are going to lose.

I don't like what the players are doing in terms of possibly attacking those things, but I don't blame them. The owners actions are inexcusable. They have handled nearly every aspect of this terribly.

If you're a publicly traded company every company issues a quarterly and annual profit and loss statement. I doubt seriously your employer discuses with you and other employees every minute expenditure your CFO discusses in board or senior management meetings on a monthly or quarterly basis.

You could be the sole exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They players are at a minimum equally fault, no matter how white-hot your hatred of ownership remains,.

I don't hate the owners, I hate what they are doing. Honestly, I don't like what the players are doing, but I understand why they are. This accusation coming from the group that are pushing the envelope when it comes to DeMaurice Smith. Never once have I called for anything violent to happen to the owners. I've met several owners in my job, and let me say they were completely polite, and a pleasure to work with. Arthur Blank is one of the most humble, kindest executive types I've met in this business. Dan Snyder comes to where I work before every game for team meetings. He seems like a decent person. I've also met De Smith when I was the conference coordinator for the NFLPA when held their talks here in DC in 2009 and 2010. He was s perfect gentlemen as well.

I can differentiate between people and their business tactics. Maybe my rhetoric got heated out of anger, because I feel the owners are doing much more harm than good. But your rhetoric takes the cake. It's been practically a lynch mob mentality, and I don't say that lightly. I've bit my tongue on a lot of the hyperbole, and coded rhetoric around here, and if you haven't seen it you're blind.

So don't go throwing the hate word at me, when you have been so over the top against the players that you'd think there was a Strike, and the players joined Al Qaeda. I've said a million times, if this were a strike I'd blame the players. No matter what the situation, you'd blame the players. I don't know if the jocks back in high school whipped you with wet towels in the locker room or what, but you accusing me of having bias is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a publicly traded company every company issues a quarterly and annual profit and loss statement. I doubt seriously your employer discuses with you and other employees every minute expenditure your CFO discusses in board or senior management meetings on a monthly or quarterly basis.

You could be the sole exception.

Funny, my CFO is here today to discuss our management profit share and plans for a new property in Denver.

If the owners want a new deal, so soon after agreeing to the previous deal, they have to prove why. The NFLPA is under advisement from an investment bank. The owners have to be hiding something. If they have a revenue share agreement, they have to prove they have been true to it.

If the NFL weren't allowed the anti-trust exemptions it enjoys, I might be more understanding. But the public's interest in having a full football season, and agreements that can be bargained in good faith far outweigh the NFL's right to privacy, especially after the Doty ruling. If you caught someone stashing cash after you had an agreement of a set share, you'd do the same thing (if you were smart).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO you are saying the players have a right to information they have no right to, and owners are unreasonable for not giving them information they shouldn't have?

YOu want a broken record, how about "They should just open their books"?

Did i say that? hmm can you point me to how you came up to that asinine conclusion?

also why shouldnt the owners give up the information. They are the ones claiming it is unsustainable. If you expect the players to come to the table and negotiate in good faith, then shouldnt the owners do the same?

The difference between our broken records is that mine brings up a valid point that could end this mess, while yours adds nothing in value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, my CFO is here today to discuss our management profit share and plans for a new property in Denver.

If the owners want a new deal, so soon after agreeing to the previous deal, they have to prove why. The NFLPA is under advisement from an investment bank. The owners have to be hiding something. If they have a revenue share agreement, they have to prove they have been true to it.

If the NFL weren't allowed the anti-trust exemptions it enjoys, I might be more understanding. But the public's interest in having a full football season, and agreements that can be bargained in good faith far outweigh the NFL's right to privacy, especially after the Doty ruling. If you caught someone stashing cash after you had an agreement of a set share, you'd do the same thing (if you were smart).

That's not the same as opening your books!

I have been the majority owner in one business, 50-50 owner in another, minority owner in another and I have been responsible for division budgets ranging from 60 million to 1.3 billion.

What are your business credentials?

chifalc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the same as opening your books!

I have been the majority owner in one business, 50-50 owner in another, minority owner in another and I have been responsible for division budgets ranging from 60 million to 1.3 billion.

What are your business credentials?

The players want to see revenue and profits. they aren't asking to look at Arthur Blank's portfolio, or a NFL executive salary breakdown, or even assets. Considering the NFL's actions, and the NFL's desperation for a new deal, I have zero problem with that request. If the NBA or the UFL were asking, I would disagree. the players are partners, and that has been admitted several times by Goodell. The fact is, the big money teams, don't want the little money teams to see their books. The Jerry Joneses doesn't want people to see the strip clubs he rents out, or the mistresses on the payroll. Maybe they should have thought of all this

What are my credentials? What are you trying to do? Compare prick sizes? The owners either give the players 50/50, or they open the books. If they want a deal, they got to play ball. These are elite athletes, not cubicle dwellers or basic skilled laborers. Do you have an Arthur Blank fathead? I don't think so.

Your credentials, mine are irrelevant. I used to part owner of a bar in my late 20s early 30s, I've been a freelance caterer, I have a degree in Business from GCSU. I also manage employees repped by 3 different unions at a convention center. I manage million dollar tradeshows and conventions every week. My department has a budget. That said, I'm not a player or a sports franchise owner, and I'm pretty sure you're not either. If you are so business savvy, why aren't you up there?

Wow. You're a regular Warren Buffet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players want to see revenue and profits. they aren't asking to look at Arthur Blank's portfolio, or a NFL executive salary breakdown, or even assets. Considering the NFL's actions, and the NFL's desperation for a new deal, I have zero problem with that request. If the NBA or the UFL were asking, I would disagree. the players are partners, and that has been admitted several times by Goodell. The fact is, the big money teams, don't want the little money teams to see their books. The Jerry Joneses doesn't want people to see the strip clubs he rents out, or the mistresses on the payroll. Maybe they should have thought of all this

What are my credentials? What are you trying to do? Compare prick sizes? The owners either give the players 50/50, or they open the books. If they want a deal, they got to play ball. These are elite athletes, not cubicle dwellers or basic skilled laborers. Do you have an Arthur Blank fathead? I don't think so.

Your credentials, mine are irrelevant. I used to part owner of a bar in my late 20s early 30s, I've been a freelance caterer, I have a degree in Business from GCSU. I also manage employees repped by 3 different unions at a convention center. I manage million dollar tradeshows and conventions every week. My department has a budget. That said, I'm not a player or a sports franchise owner, and I'm pretty sure you're not either. If you are so business savvy, why aren't you up there?

Wow. You're a regular Warren Buffet.

You are aware at the time of decertification, the owners offered a their full profitabilities statement. The NFLPA declined to even look at it b/c it wasn't the "entire books". The players also already have a fully audited list of league revenue per year, along with a large list of audited league expenses, as well as certain team expenses.

the bottom line, they were offered enough financial and P&L information to satisfy the "NEED", but that wanted ALL of it. Therefore, they weren't even willing to look at was offered.

ukfalc and chifalc like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep saying that last part. No one is questioning the morality, legality or ethicalness of owners showing the books. You added nothing to the conversation. You have become a broken record. This deal has nothing to do with moral, ethical , legal or any other type of right, so you bring that up does not add to the conversation. If the owners wanted to truly get a deal done, then they would give the information in good faith to get the deal done. I mean RG has said they are partners.

How can you expect the players to take a bad deal or change their stance from the previous CBA, when the owners are not willing to give them information proving that it is unsustainable.

This is one of my big issues with your stance on this one Georgiafan.

There is a big difference from the players changing their stance on the previous CBA and taking a bad deal. No-one can legitimatley argue that the last CBA wasn't slanted HUGELY in favor of the players. The players, however, have been unwilling to budge a bit off of that deal. The bottom line is, the same deal was never going to be signed. Both the players and owners knew that. the owners were more willing to lock out the players than resign the same slanted and biased deal, and the players were more willing to decertify and sue and be locked out than sign anything less than the same slanted and biased deal.

The owners however, in there offers made many concessions to try and reach a fair deal. The players came off nothing and still demanded the same deal.

The players constantly argue for the owners to show their books. Why? They all knew how slanted the deal was in there favor. They weren't willing to make any concessions to try and reach a fair deal. They just wanted to keep their sweetheart deal. Sure, i would have wanted to keep my sweetheart deal also, but i would have understood it was exactly that. Why do you think we had labor peace since 1993 until now? The previous CBA's (excluding the most recent) have been fairly even to both sides. That made them much easier to extend and continue to negotiate. When both sides have a fair deal, the give and take during negotiations is easier to accomplish. No-one feels like they are losing. When it's heavily slanted in ones favor, they are traditionally unwilling to give anything up b/c it's seen as a loss making these negotiations much harder and more venomous.

Seeing Tagliabue retire and the owners wanted to avoid a strike, uncapped season or work stoppage, Gene Upshaw was able to get a heavily slanted deal pushed through and agreed to by the owners. No we have that same situation. We had a heavily slanted deal, that one side is not willing to budge on because it would feel like they are losing instead of an even trade to reach a deal that is truly fair to both sides.

chifalc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware at the time of decertification, the owners offered a their full profitabilities statement. The NFLPA declined to even look at it b/c it wasn't the "entire books". The players also already have a fully audited list of league revenue per year, along with a large list of audited league expenses, as well as certain team expenses.

the bottom line, they were offered enough financial and P&L information to satisfy the "NEED", but that wanted ALL of it. Therefore, they weren't even willing to look at was offered.

Didn't you read...he's a caterer at a convention center and this qualifies him as a business expert. :rolleyes:

I've just just determined any further conversations with him about business 101 and negotiations are futile. His fundamental understanding of this is equivalent to the players he defends. He needs to focus on clean table cloths, fresh food and honorable wine comsumption and billing.

chifalc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites