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

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.

we both agree that the deal was heavily player slated, but you have 1500 players vs 32 owners, plus a few minor owners 2nd of all the owners are not forced to pay out the full salary cap, and i have yet to hear of the money being recycled, so in reality i can understand it being a little more than 50% on the players side, since they have almost 50X more people in their group.

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.

wow belittling people. nice job *****.

paulitik 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 lockout was the owners decision to make. They didn't "have to" lockout, but in reality they would have idiots not to do so in the circumstances. On the other hand the players didn't "have to" decertify, but they would also have been stupid to allow the CBA to expire without doing so. The certainly didn't "have to" challenge the draft/cap etc. as part of their anti-trust case, but they did so. Once it became clear that an extension to the CBA was not agreed, neither side had much option.

You're the hypocrite here, because you apply a totally different standard to both sides. The players seek to challenge the draft/cap and FA for leverage and you "can understsnd" why they are doing it. When they owners counter by seek their own leverage, and you are in absolute uproar.

When the owners lock the players out in repsonse to the anti-trust case, you accsue the owner of extortion, yet you are happy for DeSmith to issue unreasonable demands to see 10 years of financial accounts for every NFL team on March 11th. The owners offered more financial info than they ever have in the past, and willing for an independent auditor to go through the full financial record and report back to the NFLPA - but that wasn't good enough.

You criticise the owners for not showing the books and cancelling the lockout as acts of "good will", yet you make no calls for the players to reciprocate, to show goodwill by dropping their lawsuit (or the parts relating to the draft, cap etc), or extend any other good will to the owners.

How am I a hyprocrite for asking them to CONSIDER an offer? The owners made extensive concessions on March 11th, giving the players almost everything they wanted. Taking the weekend to consider the offer fully would not have prejediced their position. Properly considering the offer and formally repsond to it with a counter proposal, would at least have shown a genuine willingness to compromise and discuss. That is what negotiating in good faith is.

Quarterback and chifalc like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we both agree that the deal was heavily player slated, but you have 1500 players vs 32 owners, plus a few minor owners 2nd of all the owners are not forced to pay out the full salary cap, and i have yet to hear of the money being recycled, so in reality i can understand it being a little more than 50% on the players side, since they have almost 50X more people in their group.

Okay, your on the right track now. Look at your first statement. We both agree that the deal was heavily player slated.

Take out the percentages of who gets what, how much the owners get off the top, etc... Look at it purely on a macro level. The owners very distinctly had the short end of the stick in regards to the last CBA.

So, in order for the owners to even get back to an even deal, the players are going to have to "lose" in the negotiations. It won't be like when the two sides start out on a level playing field. The owners will offer ancillary benefits and other things in return to try and even out the revenue sharing, but the players will have to sacrifice more than they will gain to reach an agreement that is fair to both parties. this is why you usually see the greatest labor issues occur after one side pushes through an overly favorable deal for one of the parties.

I'm going to "assume" we can both agree on my above point, as that is a generalization of this concept; not specifics about the lawsuit/decertification/lockout. safe assumption at this point?

The issue i have with the players side is the fact they were not willing to "lose" ANYTHING. It has been alot of rhetoric and vile coming from the NFLPA saying the owners are trying to screw the players over and they just want to keep the same deal in place. This is the same deal that has been agreed upon by every player, analyst, the NFLPA itself, etc... considered a sweetheart deal for the players.

It's a case of how soon the players forget. In 2006 they were all screaming, we got away with a highway robbery. They were ecstatic that they had such a deal in their favor. Now that the owners are trying to level it out, they've changed their tune. They are refusing to admit how good of a deal it was, and that anything less than that is an unfair deal and a mockery of them. That's complete BS.

ukfalc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no intention of demeaning you or what you do; I was sarcastically attacking your credentials as a labor/negotiations expert who has routinely accused the owners of lying, deception, and clandestine attempts to cover up their books without a single fact to prove this.

And I find it comical that someone supposedly mature and successful with so many responsibilities resorts to name calling and vulgarity toward another message board member. However, based on your previous posts neither am I surprised.

Whatever. You feel like you are better than everyone else because of your chosen profession, or at least what you pretend your profession is. And as far as you know, I could be an overweight housewife in Des Moine, or I could be freaking Jack Welch. It's the effing internet. Credibilty can be googled.

You lost my respect when you demean honest work. I busted my ***, and I'm **** proud of what I've done, and where and what I've come from.That's far more insulting than a few bleeped out jerk off insults. You obviously haven't been around too many type As in the business world, I heard worse language in our Management huddle this morning. I can debate all day long, we are on a football message board, we are not in any position to know what is going on in those meetings. You and I aren't in any negotiation. I'm just here to talk and vent my frustrations. Neither of us have any power in this situation. In the grand scheme of it all, our opinions don't matter to either party. It's ridiculous to question someone's credentials on AF.com. Business isn't black and white, and businesses aren't cookie cutter entities. The NFLPA's investment bank advised the NFLPA to request the books. I'm pretty sure they know what's possible more than you. And yes the NFL got caught making a crooked deal with the TV broadcasters, so that argument is moot.

Honestly, I could give a #### what you think about me. I've had these same discussion in the lunchroom with our GM, the revenue manager (who happens to be my best friend), they don't think what I've said is outlandish, even if they disagree with some points. If the NFL wants as much as as they do, and it's worth losing a season over it, they are going to have to something they don't like, and that very well could be financial information.

falconidae and GEORGIAfan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever. You feel like you are better than everyone else because of your chosen profession, or at least what you pretend your profession is. And as far as you know, I could be an overweight housewife in Des Moine, or I could be freaking Jack Welch. It's the effing internet. Credibilty can be googled.

You lost my respect when you demean honest work. I busted my ***, and I'm **** proud of what I've done, and where and what I've come from.That's far more insulting than a few bleeped out jerk off insults. You obviously haven't been around too many type As in the business world, I heard worse language in our Management huddle this morning. I can debate all day long, we are on a football message board, we are not in any position to know what is going on in those meetings. You and I aren't in any negotiation. I'm just here to talk and vent my frustrations. Neither of us have any power in this situation. In the grand scheme of it all, our opinions don't matter to either party. It's ridiculous to question someone's credentials on AF.com. Business isn't black and white, and businesses aren't cookie cutter entities. The NFLPA's investment bank advised the NFLPA to request the books. I'm pretty sure they know what's possible more than you. And yes the NFL got caught making a crooked deal with the TV broadcasters, so that argument is moot.

Honestly, I could give a #### what you think about me. I've had these same discussion in the lunchroom with our GM, the revenue manager (who happens to be my best friend), they don't think what I've said is outlandish, even if they disagree with some points. If the NFL wants as much as as they do, and it's worth losing a season over it, they are going to have to something they don't like, and that very well could be financial information.

Please allow me to say it again more clearly. I in no way intended to demean or belittle anything you have done, doing or will do. I was simply being sarcastic in my comments due to my irritation at your labeling the owners as dishonorable villains. I have the utmost respect for anyone, regardless of what they do, that earns a living to take care of them and their families...period! I'll go even further, I sincerely apologize to you for even having made you feel this way.

Best regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

They have already given the players everything they need to have or have any right to expect to get.

At this point, asking for further records is not even remotely reasonable and is just playing games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Deal is an AGREEMENT. If they did not like the first deal they should have NOT AGREED to it. If you are using a legal clause to dismiss the agreement then you are NOT using good faith as well as are simply exploiting the system. In all contracts it is quid pro quo - I do this for you if you do this for me. If the players were faithful on their end so should the other party.

As I said earlier, if you do NOT like the contract, then wait for it to expire and THEN renegotiate. Who knows when the 2 groups will reach an agreement but if they do, will one of the parties legally opt out if they don't like what they agreed to?

This tactic they applied can be used against them and/or the players can see what they have done and are being much more tentative in agreeing because they do not want the owners to reuse the same legal tactics.

Bills owner may have a case. The rest do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deal is an AGREEMENT. If they did not like the first deal they should have NOT AGREED to it. If you are using a legal clause to dismiss the agreement then you are NOT using good faith as well as are simply exploiting the system. In all contracts it is quid pro quo - I do this for you if you do this for me. If the players were faithful on their end so should the other party.

As I said earlier, if you do NOT like the contract, then wait for it to expire and THEN renegotiate. Who knows when the 2 groups will reach an agreement but if they do, will one of the parties legally opt out if they don't like what they agreed to?

This tactic they applied can be used against them and/or the players can see what they have done and are being much more tentative in agreeing because they do not want the owners to reuse the same legal tactics.

Bills owner may have a case. The rest do not.

So if you use an option that is in the contract that both the owners and the players agreed to in order to opt out, you aren't in good faith? Gee, your understanding on contract law or lack thereof is. . astounding. So you think the opt out was there just for decoration, and never to be used unless the other side was in flagrant violation???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you use an option that is in the contract that both the owners and the players agreed to in order to opt out, you aren't in good faith? Gee, your understanding on contract law or lack thereof is. . astounding. So you think the opt out was there just for decoration, and never to be used unless the other side was in flagrant violation???

First of all there was NO option in the contract that allowed them to opt out. That is pure ad hoc. The owners simply used a loophole in the legal system saying the contract was illegal in the first place. My point is that contract would have illegal WHEN both parties agreed to it. The owners has NO problem with the illegal contract until now.

Let the justice system worry about when it is illegal. The owners and their lawyers KNEW it was illegal at the time it was signed and obviously did not care. They only made it a point when they wanted more money. If the contract was illegal but the money destribution within the contract favored the owners, those same owners would not worry about if the contract was illegal in the first place.

This dispute is about money distribution, the legality of the contract is just a means to renegotiate. If the owners were simply worried about the legality of the contract then they would have made the same offer minus any stiputations that would be considered "antitrust".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all there was NO option in the contract that allowed them to opt out. That is pure ad hoc. The owners simply used a loophole in the legal system saying the contract was illegal in the first place. My point is that contract would have illegal WHEN both parties agreed to it. The owners has NO problem with the illegal contract until now.

Let the justice system worry about when it is illegal. The owners and their lawyers KNEW it was illegal at the time it was signed and obviously did not care. They only made it a point when they wanted more money. If the contract was illegal but the money destribution within the contract favored the owners, those same owners would not worry about if the contract was illegal in the first place.

This dispute is about money distribution, the legality of the contract is just a means to renegotiate. If the owners were simply worried about the legality of the contract then they would have made the same offer minus any stiputations that would be considered "antitrust".

SOrry, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You are wrong.]\

The current Collective Bargaining Agreement, initially negotiated in 1993, had been extended on several occasions, most recently in March 2006. The 2006 extension, which could have continued through the 2012 season, gave both the NFL and the NFLPA an option to shorten the deal by one or two years.

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/News/Articles/2008/05/NFL_Owners_Opt_Out_of_CBA_Early.aspx

Both the players and owners had the option to end the CBA by November, but the player's association, for obvious reasons, was happy with the deal under which players were making huge financial gains.

http://blog.nola.com/saintsbeat/2008/05/nfl_owners_opt_out_of_cba.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites