Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Orange Crush]

Per espn"The NFL told its 32 teams Thursday that, pending a ruling on its request that a "temporary stay" of the lower court's ruling lifting the lockout be granted, it should open their facilities to players at 8 a.m. ET on Friday.Players will be allowed to meet with coaches and teams may distribute playbooks to players and begin OTA and minicamp practices, subject to rules from the last collective bargaining agreement. The NFL said on Friday it would advise its teams on rules for player transactions including the start of the "league year" when those moves can begin to take place."

Every player who was due a roster bonus on the first day of the "league year" is going to be upset. Teams are allowing some aspects of the new year to begin, such as OTAs, and the earning of workout bonuses, but not others. I realize what they're trying to do, but I'm just pointing out that it's still problematic.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it. Tagliabue was an idiot and got fleeced by Upshaw. But Tags didn't really care anyway since his legacy only really rested on getting a short term deal done so that all of this stuff didn't go down on his watch. So even if the deal was bad and lead to problems later, he wasn't going to get the blame (and he isn't). Of course the owners were totally complicit in the stupidity since they just trusted Tagliabue and never even read the final proposal from the players that they ended up voting on and approving!Upshaw took advantage of his friendship with Tagliabue in order to score as big as possible for the players, knowing that the owners would almost certainly opt out early, but also knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the league to win back any of those things. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die soon, but the writing was on the wall as far as his time leading the NFLPA. So securing even a short term deal that was a major win for the players would benefit his legacy and help the players going forward, even if it was almost inevitable that it would lead to labor strife at this point.Even if Tagliabue and Upshaw were still around right now, we'd still be in this situation. No way would it be any different. And they're the two that set it in motion.

I think Tags made the best deal for the future of the league and the owners have since become more greedy. If he was still around, he might be able to get the owners to figure out their internal revenue sharing disagreements and keep the league running under a CBA the players could accept.

I think the economic realities of the NFL and the declining economy made the owner's decision for them. Cities are no longer subsidizing new stadium construction. Owners are carrying larger debt loads for these stadiums. The economy is in the tank. What might have worked before doesn't necessarily work now. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to do with greed.

Yeah. It's such a shame that Jerry Jones won't be making any money on that huge monstrosity of a stadium that was 75% self-financed. Oh, wait. The Cowboys are actually the most profitable team in the entire league. I wonder how that happened.

My personal distaste for Jerry Jones aside, nothing you said changes the fact that the economic landscape and economy itself have changed drastically since the initial CBA was signed. You may disagree that a restructuring was necessary, but the owner's certainly thought so. I, personally, have no trouble believing that some correction needed to be made to the economic model. I've seen it in other industries and it makes sense here as well. Tossing out "greedy owners" is an easy soundbite.

 

[Ksquared]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it. Tagliabue was an idiot and got fleeced by Upshaw. But Tags didn't really care anyway since his legacy only really rested on getting a short term deal done so that all of this stuff didn't go down on his watch. So even if the deal was bad and lead to problems later, he wasn't going to get the blame (and he isn't). Of course the owners were totally complicit in the stupidity since they just trusted Tagliabue and never even read the final proposal from the players that they ended up voting on and approving!Upshaw took advantage of his friendship with Tagliabue in order to score as big as possible for the players, knowing that the owners would almost certainly opt out early, but also knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the league to win back any of those things. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die soon, but the writing was on the wall as far as his time leading the NFLPA. So securing even a short term deal that was a major win for the players would benefit his legacy and help the players going forward, even if it was almost inevitable that it would lead to labor strife at this point.Even if Tagliabue and Upshaw were still around right now, we'd still be in this situation. No way would it be any different. And they're the two that set it in motion.

Many forget that Goodell was heavily involved in the last two negotiations and had a close relationship with Upshaw. I find it comical how Tags is able do the classic political move of not dealing with a problem, just pass it on to the next person to deal with. On top of that, he made an agreement that made the situation from the owners side worse. Sounds like he should be in our Congress since that is what they do most of the time.I happen to believe Goodell has been in a no win situation because he has 32 individuals all with different agendas that don't want to really help each other out. On top of any agreement has to have approval by 75% of the owners.

 

[David Dodds]

My personal distaste for Jerry Jones aside, nothing you said changes the fact that the economic landscape and economy itself have changed drastically since the initial CBA was signed. You may disagree that a restructuring was necessary, but the owner's certainly thought so. I, personally, have no trouble believing that some correction needed to be made to the economic model. I've seen it in other industries and it makes sense here as well. Tossing out "greedy owners" is an easy soundbite.

I can buy into this. Obviously the fact that the players did not even want anything more seems to favor what you are saying. But why didn't the owners make an effort to demonstrate that things had changed for the worse. I am not talking about opening all of the books. I am talking about trying to explain why they felt they needed $2B off of the top instead of $1B. Had the owners asked for $7B of the $9B off the top, are they believable? and why would the owners then agree to only $400-$500M more in the Cohen negotiations if they really needed $1B more. This is a trust issue. The owners probably are getting a lot worse deal than they thought they signed. But failing to communicate to show where they have been harmed while also stacking the cards in the TV deal has given them the "untrustworthy" tag to the players. A strong Commish should have been able to cut through these issues and regain the trust from both sides.

 

[Ksquared]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

 

[Ksquared]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Eh, they're the ones that are really responsible for this mess. It was clear the moment the owners realized just how much the players gained in the last CBA that they were going to take advantage of the early opt out. I think Tags was sold a bill of goods on the last CBA that he then sold to the owners, only to find out after the fact that Upshaw had made all sorts of significant changes in it. Tagliabue was an idiot and got fleeced by Upshaw. But Tags didn't really care anyway since his legacy only really rested on getting a short term deal done so that all of this stuff didn't go down on his watch. So even if the deal was bad and lead to problems later, he wasn't going to get the blame (and he isn't). Of course the owners were totally complicit in the stupidity since they just trusted Tagliabue and never even read the final proposal from the players that they ended up voting on and approving!Upshaw took advantage of his friendship with Tagliabue in order to score as big as possible for the players, knowing that the owners would almost certainly opt out early, but also knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the league to win back any of those things. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die soon, but the writing was on the wall as far as his time leading the NFLPA. So securing even a short term deal that was a major win for the players would benefit his legacy and help the players going forward, even if it was almost inevitable that it would lead to labor strife at this point.Even if Tagliabue and Upshaw were still around right now, we'd still be in this situation. No way would it be any different. And they're the two that set it in motion.

I think Tags made the best deal for the future of the league and the owners have since become more greedy. If he was still around, he might be able to get the owners to figure out their internal revenue sharing disagreements and keep the league running under a CBA the players could accept.

I think you are smoking something. The internal revenue issue has been a problem since the mid 90's and Tags could solve it. I don't see how he would be the miracle worker now, when the discrepancies in revenue were alot less 10 years ago and he could not get any type of agreement. But don't let everyone's adulation of Tags get in the way of historical facts.

 

[David Dodds]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap). And if a CBA is so important to the owners, then start acting like it. They blew up the last CBA, demanded an extra $1B off the top with no justification, and then mailed in the negotiations to get a new deal. I keep hearing from them that they really want a new CBA, but their actions are speaking way louder than their words.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

My personal distaste for Jerry Jones aside, nothing you said changes the fact that the economic landscape and economy itself have changed drastically since the initial CBA was signed. You may disagree that a restructuring was necessary, but the owner's certainly thought so. I, personally, have no trouble believing that some correction needed to be made to the economic model. I've seen it in other industries and it makes sense here as well. Tossing out "greedy owners" is an easy soundbite.

I can buy into this. Obviously the fact that the players did not even want anything more seems to favor what you are saying. But why didn't the owners make an effort to demonstrate that things had changed for the worse. I am not talking about opening all of the books. I am talking about trying to explain why they felt they needed $2B off of the top instead of $1B. Had the owners asked for $7B of the $9B off the top, are they believable? and why would the owners then agree to only $400-$500M more in the Cohen negotiations if they really needed $1B more. This is a trust issue. The owners probably are getting a lot worse deal than they thought they signed. But failing to communicate to show where they have been harmed while also stacking the cards in the TV deal has given them the "untrustworthy" tag to the players. A strong Commish should have been able to cut through these issues and regain the trust from both sides.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I also agree that if both sides trusted each other, the owners could have asked for exactly what they needed. However, you and I know that if they ask for 400-500M, then the players counter with 200-250M. If they need 500M, I understand why they start at 1B. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.As for what the owners needed to do to prove the need...I don't know. They offered audited financials through a third party, which wasn't enough. They weren't going to give 10 years full access to open books, which I agree with. Was there some middle ground here that neither party identified? Maybe. However it seems to me that one, and maybe both, sides wanted to do this in court.Just like everyone else, I'd like to have football back. I'd like to have it back mostly the way we left it with some tweaking. I hope there's a new CBA. I hope the players don't use their newfound leverage to extract a pound of flesh from the owners as punishment. In fact, I hope the end results in some modification downward of the players share because I truly think economic conditions have changed and the future of the sport is benefitted. I hope the owners and the players look at big picture as much as their own pocketbook out of respect for the game that has made them all wealthy.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap)

I think it would take a few years to realize the unbalancing effect.

 

[Jason Wood]

Andrew Brandt's (much anticipated) analysis:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Late-Night-with-Judge-Nelson-stay-denied.html

 

[Ksquared]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap). And if a CBA is so important to the owners, then start acting like it. They blew up the last CBA, demanded an extra $1B off the top with no justification, and then mailed in the negotiations to get a new deal. I keep hearing from them that they really want a new CBA, but their actions are speaking way louder than their words.

And that is supposed to prove what? If this goes the direction of MLB, it will take 5-6 years for the dust to settle. And what will clearly happen is the small market teams will be come the developmental league for the big money teams. I watched Oakland A's go from a consistent playoff/WS threat to cannon-fodder almost in a 10 year span. They cannot afford to make a single mistake on a big contract. The Yankees sign someone for a contract only a couple teams could do and the guy does not pan out. So what, before the trade deadline they pick up another quality player for peanuts quite often from a small market team that know they will not be able to sign the player after the season because he becomes a free agent.I have no interest in watching almost all of the teams in the West, GB, Jax, Carolina, Minn, etc become the feeder teams for future "Yankees" of the NFL.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I also agree that if both sides trusted each other, the owners could have asked for exactly what they needed. However, you and I know that if they ask for 400-500M, then the players counter with 200-250M. If they need 500M, I understand why they start at 1B. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.As for what the owners needed to do to prove the need...I don't know. They offered audited financials through a third party, which wasn't enough. They weren't going to give 10 years full access to open books, which I agree with. Was there some middle ground here that neither party identified? Maybe.

I agree with your first paragraph. I also agree with your second paragraph, but I think the request to see 10 years of financials is explained by your first paragraph: if they wanted to see five years, they had to ask for ten.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I also agree that if both sides trusted each other, the owners could have asked for exactly what they needed. However, you and I know that if they ask for 400-500M, then the players counter with 200-250M. If they need 500M, I understand why they start at 1B. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.As for what the owners needed to do to prove the need...I don't know. They offered audited financials through a third party, which wasn't enough. They weren't going to give 10 years full access to open books, which I agree with. Was there some middle ground here that neither party identified? Maybe.

I agree with your first paragraph. I also agree with your second paragraph, but I think the request to see 10 years of financials is explained by your first paragraph: if they wanted to see five years, they had to ask for ten.

Maybe. I don't think unfettered access to the books is a reasonable request whether it be five or ten. But I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on that.

 

[fatness]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Same here.

Interesting, what do you think they would have done differently?

Maximized what their respective sides could have gotten out of this, while holding their sides in check enough to realize that going to court was going to be destructive.Actually the more I think about it, I miss Tagliabue. De Smith is just doing just fine. He'd still be negotiating if the negotiations had been anything more than a stall tactic. Goodell has been horrible.The main thing I miss is 2 leaders of opposing sides realizing they have goals that are common in many ways, and never losing sight of that.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Same here.

Interesting, what do you think they would have done differently?

Maximized what their respective sides could have gotten out of this, while holding their sides in check enough to realize that going to court was going to be destructive.Actually the more I think about it, I miss Tagliabue. De Smith is just doing just fine. He'd still be negotiating if the negotiations had been anything more than a stall tactic. Goodell has been horrible.

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here. D. Smith has never demonstrated any greater interest than Goodell in remaining at the negotiating table.

Perhaps it was each party's distrust of the other that drove them away from the bargaining table, but I don't see how you exonerate D. Smith.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I've been out of the loop for a while.

Does this ruling mean that NFL teams can trade

NFL PLAYERS during this weekend's draft ?

 

[coolnerd]

I've been out of the loop for a while.Does this ruling mean that NFL teams can trade NFL PLAYERS during this weekend's draft ?

There will not be trading of players...tonight at least.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've been out of the loop for a while.Does this ruling mean that NFL teams can trade NFL PLAYERS during this weekend's draft ?

It's up to the NFL to come up with a rule about that. The indications I've seen are that the league will not allow player trades until after the draft is over (or until after the 8th Circuit rules on the issue of a stay).

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

Same here.

Interesting, what do you think they would have done differently?

Maximized what their respective sides could have gotten out of this, while holding their sides in check enough to realize that going to court was going to be destructive.Actually the more I think about it, I miss Tagliabue. De Smith is just doing just fine. He'd still be negotiating if the negotiations had been anything more than a stall tactic. Goodell has been horrible.

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here. D. Smith has never demonstrated any greater interest than Goodell in remaining at the negotiating table.

Perhaps it was each party's distrust of the other that drove them away from the bargaining table, but I don't see how you exonerate D. Smith.

Agreed I think DeSmith is the biggest villian going here, well that and the owners dumbness to go to court. UGH

 

[fatness]

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far).

You do struggle with opinions that are opposite yours, don't you?I suppose I could call you and IdiotBoxer "suckups to wealth and power structures", but that would be dismissive, simplistic, and very incorrect, just like your little labels.You don't read the Redskins thread much, do you?

 

[fatness]

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here.

Let me ask a serious question. Do you think you're discussing this issue in an unbiased way?

 

[fatness]

From Greg Aiello of the NFL, via PFT

“We — just moments ago — notified our clubs that we think it’s appropriate under the circumstances to take additional steps in response to the injunction,” Aiello said. “So the facilities will open tomorrow at 8 a.m. Eastern time. In the meantime, clubs are free immediately to start contacting players and let them know when the facilities will be open for use.”Aiello said players can also go to team headquarters for medical exams, meetings with coaches, distribution of playbooks and film study, among other things. And that all 32 clubs can start setting up schedules for organized team activities.Shortly after Aiello’s appearance, the NFL issued a statement saying that voluntary workouts can begin as well. Players will be paid $130 a day for showing up and, more importantly, these workouts will count toward any offseason workout bonus in the player’s contract. So for players like D’Brickashaw Ferguson, this news could be worth $750,000.That doesn’t mean, however, that the league year has begun: Transactions like trades and free agent signings can’t start just yet.“Judge Nelson said it was up to us to determine how to proceed, and we think in light of the fact that the first round of the draft is tonight, clubs are fully focused on that,” Aiello said. “The best way to proceed is for the veterans to start working out at facilities tomorrow, and then we’ll set up the process of starting the league year, which would include player trades and player signings. . . . No player transactions until we start the league year.”So there will be no trades of players under contract today, although it’s at least theoretically possible that the league year could start tomorrow and players under contract could be traded tomorrow and the next day, during Rounds 2-7 of the draft.Of course, all of this is moot if the appeals court ruling goes the way the NFL is hoping.“If they issue that stay, these arrangements would change, obviously,” Aiello said.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap)

I think it would take a few years to realize the unbalancing effect.

Agreed.You also have to consider these factors why no salary cap had any adverse effect on the league last year:

- With FA moved from 4 to 6 years service, there was probably the smallest crop of quality FA's available since the system had been in place.

- The owners were planning ahead for the lockout, and most of them were more interested in keeping costs down rather than going on a spending spree.

 

[David Dodds]

Let's set the clock back here. Cohen is brought into mediate. The players and owners are attempting a new CBA. Progress is being made and they extended the negotiations for one more week.

As the Commish, you know if you don't get a deal here, you had better get so close as to get both sides to agree to keep negotiating. You know the clubs have all been approached and could decertify if progress stalls.

So why did the owners and Commish make their "decent" offer with all of 10 minutes to study it? This is where I think Goodell really blundered hard. His entire job was to keep CBA talks going. Had the owners made what they offered in the last ten minutes even a day earlier, I think the CBA talks likely would have continued. Or better yet, why not ask De Smith what criteria would need to be satisfied to continue negotiating.

Instead the owners sent just a handful of owners that last week and mailed in the negotiations. They then presented something very last minute where a lot of the material was new and could not be digested in time.

 

[Ksquared]

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far).

You do struggle with opinions that are opposite yours, don't you?I suppose I could call you and IdiotBoxer "suckups to wealth and power structures", but that would be dismissive, simplistic, and very incorrect, just like your little labels.You don't read the Redskins thread much, do you?

No but you could identify we as someone that wants the NFL to stay basically the same as it has been for the last 10 yrs or so. I have felt all along the owner's position was closer to this than the players. Reality is they are both groups of wealthy individuals - so I have a hard time siding with either group on the business ownership vs labor position. I do care what the outcome will and I do not want what MLB has done to many teams - as I stated they basically are farm systems for big markets. For you and many others the big market/big spending teams are the ones you follow and support, for many others the teams they follow and always felt could be a couple of years away from the Super Bowl will lose that possibility.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here.

Let me ask a serious question. Do you think you're discussing this issue in an unbiased way?

No. I'm clearly more behind the owners, however I concede that Goodell and his counsel have made a number of errors.You, however, are blinded by your bias (or so it seems). I see no evidence (and would welcome you presenting it) that D. Smith would still be at the negotiating table "if Goodell's negotiations had been anything more than a stalling tactic."

 

[Ksquared]

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here.

Let me ask a serious question. Do you think you're discussing this issue in an unbiased way?

Fatness - you have made it very clear throughout all of this that the players and D Smith are correct and should make the Owners/Goodell pay (literally and figuratively). That is where the bias comes in. I asked many pages back for someone to show the difference in the NFLPA position last August and their last position before they decertified. You will notice there is little change except asking for more (ie 10 years of books rather than 5), I have maintained all along the NFLPA did not want to and never did negotiate. They were happy with the CBA as it was, so they just stonewalled. Next time an ownership is happy with a CBA I assume you will support their right to basically make demands and never negotiate? They (D Smith) wanted this to go to the courts all along so they could clean the owner's "clock" legally. There was never any serious negotiations from the union side while the owners position in the end moved pretty dramatically.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

 

[jbobbett]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap)

I think it would take a few years to realize the unbalancing effect.

They were still under the CBA last year. Very few free agents were available with the rule change. This year the FAs would bolt and there would be no draft next year. It won't take too long to unbalance.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Yes, as a Redskins fan, I'm not really worried about any of the potential dramatic changes in how the NFL is run as a result of these rulings. I'm actually in favor of no salary cap. I would prefer that franchise tags be eliminated. I would have no issue with the NFL getting rid of player roster limits. Off the top of my head, the only things I wouldn't like would be if they abolished the draft (since it's one of my favorite sporting events of the year) or if the league moved to a greater revenue sharing model.

I think Redskin fans, along with the owners of a few other teams with extremely wealthy owners not afraid to spend money, are in a unique position right now as fans. They don't have to worry about anything other than the 2011 season getting cancelled, but I don't think that's a realistic possibility. After the dust settles, it will either be the status quo or these particular teams will be postioned in much better position to win in the long term.

 

[David Dodds]

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here.

Let me ask a serious question. Do you think you're discussing this issue in an unbiased way?

No. I'm clearly more behind the owners, however I concede that Goodell and his counsel have made a number of errors.You, however, are blinded by your bias (or so it seems). I see no evidence (and would welcome you presenting it) that D. Smith would still be at the negotiating table "if Goodell's negotiations had been anything more than a stalling tactic."

I don't think Goodell was trying to stall, but I do think the owners general strategy was to have the players bleed a bit. Goodell's job was to make sure both sides kept negotiating. He failed at that badly on multiple levels (not getting a fairer offer into the players hands quick enough, few owners at the meetings, not taking the decertification option seriously, doing nothing to help make the case for more money needed).

 

[renesauz]

The owners didn't desperately want anything. They assumed they would beat down the players through attrition, as they always had in the past.

And it's been sooooooo bad for the players in the past, right?

And that's the problem with your argument.It's where you lose me, because I agree with your premise that the players shouldn't have their finger on the nuclear button.

You didn't address any of the questions, or explain in what way the owners demonstrated that they acted in good faith. Once it comes down to questions like that, your argument boils down to, "Well, the players have it pretty well, so where do they get off??"

I disagree with that. I think any person in any job is well within their rights to improve their lot in life. Comparing NFL to NBA or MLB doesn't wash, just on the basis of guaranteed contracts, or lack thereof. NFL owners don't have to honor contracts, just be willing to eat a pro-rated bonus from time to time.

NFL players cannot become free agents until what, 5 years in the league? In a league where average career length is what, 4 years?

That fact (bolded) is the single biggest reason WHY I side with the owners. I'm actually quite sympathetic to many of the player's interests, but appalled by their negotiation "strategy". I realize that others are appalled by the owners typical strategy (go slow and starve them into submission), but that strategy isn't a nuclear one, and players knew in plenty enough time to be prepared for a labor stoppage (whether by lockout or by strike).As to the time thing. Players who're only in the league 4 years aren't the ones bringing suit. They aren't the ones complaining about a free market, becuase they're the ones whose salaries are INFLATED by the cap, and it's minimum salary. They aren't the ones who're fighting about what team they can sign with, because they're much better off with the old system than a "free market".

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

why would they feel this? The law seems to be on the players side. especially given that the judges are random 3 out of 11.The owners are just trying to delay to put pressure on the palyers pocketbooks.How many times can they appeal after the 8th circuit court?

 

[Orange Crush]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap). And if a CBA is so important to the owners, then start acting like it. They blew up the last CBA, demanded an extra $1B off the top with no justification, and then mailed in the negotiations to get a new deal. I keep hearing from them that they really want a new CBA, but their actions are speaking way louder than their words.

And that is supposed to prove what? If this goes the direction of MLB, it will take 5-6 years for the dust to settle. And what will clearly happen is the small market teams will be come the developmental league for the big money teams. I watched Oakland A's go from a consistent playoff/WS threat to cannon-fodder almost in a 10 year span. They cannot afford to make a single mistake on a big contract. The Yankees sign someone for a contract only a couple teams could do and the guy does not pan out. So what, before the trade deadline they pick up another quality player for peanuts quite often from a small market team that know they will not be able to sign the player after the season because he becomes a free agent.I have no interest in watching almost all of the teams in the West, GB, Jax, Carolina, Minn, etc become the feeder teams for future "Yankees" of the NFL.

First off, all of this is really just maneuvering to gain better leverage in CBA negotiations, and no more.On the off-chance that a non-CBA free-for-all really becomes the new norm in the NFL, it still wouldn't be anywhere close to the current power disparity in MLB. The NFL enjoys an antitrust exemption regarding tv broadcast rights, and that guarantees a much higher level of revenue for all clubs that other sports leagues just do not have. For that reason, a team's overall revenue isn't tied into its tv market size, but instead on its stadium deal. That's why Green Bay, Carolina and Indianapolis are all in the top half of the league in revenues while operating in some of the country's smallest markets. They will still be able to compete. Jacksonville, Minnesota, and Oakland will be down near the bottom because of crappy stadium deals (which they may be able to improve significantly by either moving to L.A. or threatening to move to L.A.), and the "bottom", again, isn't as bad compared to other leagues.

The more worrisome aspect are owners who refuse to make competitive moves because they are more interested in pocketing as much money as possible for themselves without regard to how their uncompetitiveness damages the overall NFL brand (such as Mike Brown). And the best thing as fans we should do about that, is take away as much revenue from them as possible by boycotting teams that refuse to make good faith efforts at seeking championships, in the hope that those owners will take their investment elsewhere with higher returns and are replaced by owners who do care about the product they put on the field.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here.

Let me ask a serious question. Do you think you're discussing this issue in an unbiased way?

No. I'm clearly more behind the owners, however I concede that Goodell and his counsel have made a number of errors.You, however, are blinded by your bias (or so it seems). I see no evidence (and would welcome you presenting it) that D. Smith would still be at the negotiating table "if Goodell's negotiations had been anything more than a stalling tactic."

I don't think Goodell was trying to stall, but I do think the owners general strategy was to have the players bleed a bit. Goodell's job was to make sure both sides kept negotiating. He failed at that badly on multiple levels (not getting a fairer offer into the players hands quick enough, few owners at the meetings, not taking the decertification option seriously, doing nothing to help make the case for more money needed).

I don't disagree with any of that. I've been critical of Goodell since his arbitrary fine policy with regard to hits and he's done nothing in the labor process to convince me he's any good.That said, I still think D. Smith, as a litigator by experience, ALWAYS felt like the players best bet was through the courts. I don't see any evidence that he'd still be at the table had Goodell acted better. I suppose we can theorize. But barring an overwhelming capitulation on the part of the owners to many of the demands of the players - I think they would have decertified. My opinion and I've seen nothing to contradict it. Others are welcome to have theirs, but for fatness to suggest it was clear that D. Smith would still be negotiating and that it was clear 'stalling' was the owner's intent...well, it is kinda hard to continue to have a discussion with someone who can only see the wrongs on one side of the table.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap). And if a CBA is so important to the owners, then start acting like it. They blew up the last CBA, demanded an extra $1B off the top with no justification, and then mailed in the negotiations to get a new deal. I keep hearing from them that they really want a new CBA, but their actions are speaking way louder than their words.

And that is supposed to prove what? If this goes the direction of MLB, it will take 5-6 years for the dust to settle. And what will clearly happen is the small market teams will be come the developmental league for the big money teams. I watched Oakland A's go from a consistent playoff/WS threat to cannon-fodder almost in a 10 year span. They cannot afford to make a single mistake on a big contract. The Yankees sign someone for a contract only a couple teams could do and the guy does not pan out. So what, before the trade deadline they pick up another quality player for peanuts quite often from a small market team that know they will not be able to sign the player after the season because he becomes a free agent.I have no interest in watching almost all of the teams in the West, GB, Jax, Carolina, Minn, etc become the feeder teams for future "Yankees" of the NFL.

First off, all of this is really just maneuvering to gain better leverage in CBA negotiations, and no more.On the off-chance that a non-CBA free-for-all really becomes the new norm in the NFL, it still wouldn't be anywhere close to the current power disparity in MLB. The NFL enjoys an antitrust exemption regarding tv broadcast rights, and that guarantees a much higher level of revenue for all clubs that other sports leagues just do not have. For that reason, a team's overall revenue isn't tied into its tv market size, but instead on its stadium deal. That's why Green Bay, Carolina and Indianapolis are all in the top half of the league in revenues while operating in some of the country's smallest markets. They will still be able to compete. Jacksonville, Minnesota, and Oakland will be down near the bottom because of crappy stadium deals (which they may be able to improve significantly by either moving to L.A. or threatening to move to L.A.), and the "bottom", again, isn't as bad compared to other leagues.

The more worrisome aspect are owners who refuse to make competitive moves because they are more interested in pocketing as much money as possible for themselves without regard to how their uncompetitiveness damages the overall NFL brand (such as Mike Brown). And the best thing as fans we should do about that, is take away as much revenue from them as possible by boycotting teams that refuse to make good faith efforts at seeking championships, in the hope that those owners will take their investment elsewhere with higher returns and are replaced by owners who do care about the product they put on the field.

I asked you this before. Does the fact that the NFL has the ability to negotiate a collective TV deal require they do so? There may come a time when Dallas thinks they can get more selling their own 8 games than as part of a deal. Hard to predict how that would happen.I do however agree that the disparity is less in the NFL than in MLB, and I definitely agree that Mike Brown or some other owners might 'go Kevin McClatchy' on the NFL and start pocketing revenue and just put barely competitive teams out there.

 

[Orange Crush]

Let's set the clock back here. Cohen is brought into mediate. The players and owners are attempting a new CBA. Progress is being made and they extended the negotiations for one more week.As the Commish, you know if you don't get a deal here, you had better get so close as to get both sides to agree to keep negotiating. You know the clubs have all been approached and could decertify if progress stalls.So why did the owners and Commish make their "decent" offer with all of 10 minutes to study it? This is where I think Goodell really blundered hard. His entire job was to keep CBA talks going. Had the owners made what they offered in the last ten minutes even a day earlier, I think the CBA talks likely would have continued. Or better yet, why not ask De Smith what criteria would need to be satisfied to continue negotiating.Instead the owners sent just a handful of owners that last week and mailed in the negotiations. They then presented something very last minute where a lot of the material was new and could not be digested in time.

This is how the players saw things during those last minutes:The owners had a different motive at the time -- they gained a huge advantage if they could get the CBA to expire without the NFLPA decertifying first (could lockout the players and the union couldn't decertify for 6 months, which would be after games were starting to be cancelled). The NFLPA told them that they needed either an agreement or an extension by 4:00 Friday, otherwise they were going to decertify. The owners negotiators never brought up an extension that day. They decided to give their best offer, something they thought the players may actually take (so long as they ignored the bait and switch in future years' revenue) 10 minutes before the deadline. The NFLPA saw this merely as an attempt to get their attention focused on getting a new CBA so that they missed the deadline to decertify before the old CBA expired first. And they weren't falling for it.

 

[renesauz]

My personal distaste for Jerry Jones aside, nothing you said changes the fact that the economic landscape and economy itself have changed drastically since the initial CBA was signed. You may disagree that a restructuring was necessary, but the owner's certainly thought so. I, personally, have no trouble believing that some correction needed to be made to the economic model. I've seen it in other industries and it makes sense here as well. Tossing out "greedy owners" is an easy soundbite.

I can buy into this. Obviously the fact that the players did not even want anything more seems to favor what you are saying. But why didn't the owners make an effort to demonstrate that things had changed for the worse. I am not talking about opening all of the books. I am talking about trying to explain why they felt they needed $2B off of the top instead of $1B. Had the owners asked for $7B of the $9B off the top, are they believable? and why would the owners then agree to only $400-$500M more in the Cohen negotiations if they really needed $1B more. This is a trust issue. The owners probably are getting a lot worse deal than they thought they signed. But failing to communicate to show where they have been harmed while also stacking the cards in the TV deal has given them the "untrustworthy" tag to the players. A strong Commish should have been able to cut through these issues and regain the trust from both sides.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I also agree that if both sides trusted each other, the owners could have asked for exactly what they needed. However, you and I know that if they ask for 400-500M, then the players counter with 200-250M. If they need 500M, I understand why they start at 1B. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.As for what the owners needed to do to prove the need...I don't know. They offered audited financials through a third party, which wasn't enough. They weren't going to give 10 years full access to open books, which I agree with. Was there some middle ground here that neither party identified? Maybe. However it seems to me that one, and maybe both, sides wanted to do this in court.Just like everyone else, I'd like to have football back. I'd like to have it back mostly the way we left it with some tweaking. I hope there's a new CBA. I hope the players don't use their newfound leverage to extract a pound of flesh from the owners as punishment. In fact, I hope the end results in some modification downward of the players share because I truly think economic conditions have changed and the future of the sport is benefitted. I hope the owners and the players look at big picture as much as their own pocketbook out of respect for the game that has made them all wealthy.

 

[Orange Crush]

I asked you this before. Does the fact that the NFL has the ability to negotiate a collective TV deal require they do so? There may come a time when Dallas thinks they can get more selling their own 8 games than as part of a deal. Hard to predict how that would happen.

I think they are required to do so via NFL bylaws. But I'm not positive about that.

 

[massraider]

The owners didn't desperately want anything. They assumed they would beat down the players through attrition, as they always had in the past.

And it's been sooooooo bad for the players in the past, right?

And that's the problem with your argument.It's where you lose me, because I agree with your premise that the players shouldn't have their finger on the nuclear button.

You didn't address any of the questions, or explain in what way the owners demonstrated that they acted in good faith. Once it comes down to questions like that, your argument boils down to, "Well, the players have it pretty well, so where do they get off??"

I disagree with that. I think any person in any job is well within their rights to improve their lot in life. Comparing NFL to NBA or MLB doesn't wash, just on the basis of guaranteed contracts, or lack thereof. NFL owners don't have to honor contracts, just be willing to eat a pro-rated bonus from time to time.

NFL players cannot become free agents until what, 5 years in the league? In a league where average career length is what, 4 years?

THat fact (bolded) is the single biggest reason WHY I side with the owners. I'm actually quite sympathetic to many of the player's interests, but appalled by their negotiation "stratagy". I realize that others are appalled by the owners typical strategy (go slow and starve them into submission), but that strategy isn't a nuclear one, and players knew in plenty enough time to be prepared for a labor stoppage (whether by lockout or by strike).As to the time thing. Players who're only in the league 4 years aren't the ones bringing suit. They aren't the ones complaining about a free market, becuase they're the ones whose salaries are INFLATED by the cap, and it's minimum salary. They aren't the ones who're fighting about what team they can sign with, because they're much better off with the old system than a "free market".

It was the only strategy the players had. They had to play hardball, because the owners were certainly prepared to.

To NOT do that would have been a major sign of weakness. Before, the owners could wait and see who blinked first, knowing the players would have.

 

[renesauz]

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here.

Let me ask a serious question. Do you think you're discussing this issue in an unbiased way?

Fatness - you have made it very clear throughout all of this that the players and D Smith are correct and should make the Owners/Goodell pay (literally and figuratively). That is where the bias comes in. I asked many pages back for someone to show the difference in the NFLPA position last August and their last position before they decertified. You will notice there is little change except asking for more (ie 10 years of books rather than 5), I have maintained all along the NFLPA did not want to and never did negotiate. They were happy with the CBA as it was, so they just stonewalled. Next time an ownership is happy with a CBA I assume you will support their right to basically make demands and never negotiate? They (D Smith) wanted this to go to the courts all along so they could clean the owner's "clock" legally. There was never any serious negotiations from the union side while the owners position in the end moved pretty dramatically.

(It deserved more than one!)

 

[3nOut]

Per espn

"The NFL told its 32 teams Thursday that, pending a ruling on its request that a "temporary stay" of the lower court's ruling lifting the lockout be granted, it should open their facilities to players at 8 a.m. ET on Friday.

Players will be allowed to meet with coaches and teams may distribute playbooks to players and begin OTA and minicamp practices, subject to rules from the last collective bargaining agreement. The NFL said on Friday it would advise its teams on rules for player transactions including the start of the "league year" when those moves can begin to take place."

Can this be right? If so, why should the players ever agree to anything? Why should they just not negotiate a new deal and just keep playing with the old rules?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

why would they feel this? The law seems to be on the players side. especially given that the judges are random 3 out of 11.The owners are just trying to delay to put pressure on the palyers pocketbooks.How many times can they appeal after the 8th circuit court?

For the most part, every litigant always thinks he's right and the other side is wrong. People are biased in favor of themselves.

 

[renesauz]

I was with you right up until this point. Your bias clearly shows through here.

Let me ask a serious question. Do you think you're discussing this issue in an unbiased way?

No. I'm clearly more behind the owners, however I concede that Goodell and his counsel have made a number of errors.You, however, are blinded by your bias (or so it seems). I see no evidence (and would welcome you presenting it) that D. Smith would still be at the negotiating table "if Goodell's negotiations had been anything more than a stalling tactic."

I don't think Goodell was trying to stall, but I do think the owners general strategy was to have the players bleed a bit. Goodell's job was to make sure both sides kept negotiating. He failed at that badly on multiple levels (not getting a fairer offer into the players hands quick enough, few owners at the meetings, not taking the decertification option seriously, doing nothing to help make the case for more money needed).

I dsiagree with much of your take on this issue....but I agree 100% with this posting. Goodell has done a horrible job. The commissioner is not supposed to be the owner's patsy, he's supposed to work for the best outcome for everyone involved in the league.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I think it's pretty clear the owners feel they still have a very strong case in the 8th Circuit. It's the only thing that can explain the way they've handled the last week plus.

That may be the case, but the owners' feelings about their chances in the 8th Circuit may not be based in reality. I can easily see most of the owners collectively being mentally dishonest with themselves right now.Guys like Jerry Richardson and Jerry Jones may be great businessmen, but that doesn't mean they aren't stubborn. Especially the former, who seems to be the ringleader of this whole deal on the owners' side. Everything I've read about JRich's behavior in the past negotiations leads me to believe that he is very likely acting in a completely irrational manner right now. I would be shocked if there wasn't a group of owners that wanted to get a deal done and reach a reasonable compromise after their up front TV $ was made unavailable them. But I'm sure there is another group of owners led by the likes of Richardson that is hellbent on getting a deal done on their terms, getting back "what's theirs," and not willing to reach a reasonable compromise with the players. The bottom line is the same type of drive, ambition and strong will that led these guys to be uber successful, may be their undoing right now.

 

[renesauz]

It was the only strategy the players had. They had to play hardball, because the owners were certainly prepared to. To NOT do that would have been a major sign of weakness. Before, the owners could wait and see who blinked first, knowing the players would have.

Funny, I thought the traditional hardball tactic of labor was the strike. Most unions wouldn't dream of decertifying because they'd lose their jobs and their shirts doing so.

 

[coolnerd]

Per espn

"The NFL told its 32 teams Thursday that, pending a ruling on its request that a "temporary stay" of the lower court's ruling lifting the lockout be granted, it should open their facilities to players at 8 a.m. ET on Friday.

Players will be allowed to meet with coaches and teams may distribute playbooks to players and begin OTA and minicamp practices, subject to rules from the last collective bargaining agreement. The NFL said on Friday it would advise its teams on rules for player transactions including the start of the "league year" when those moves can begin to take place."

Can this be right? If so, why should the players ever agree to anything? Why should they just not negotiate a new deal and just keep playing with the old rules?

Honestly, we might just see that until either the players get a deal close enough to the old one or the "gasp" the leagal issues run their course.

 

[3nOut]

I miss Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw.

I've stated on numerous occasions in the past that Roger Goodell is the worst commissioner of my lifetime. And it's not close.

Lots of fans who had previously been beguiled by this guy are starting to realize this now.

I said this long before this situation began. But it is clear that D. Smith is the most dangerous player rep. the NFLPA has ever had. And by dangerous, I mean, in that he is single-minded in representing his client and has no appreciation for the bigger picture. Something Hall Of Famer Gene Upshaw was able to do.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say that the owners fear this guy easily more than any past player rep. When D. Smith took the job, he actually took a pay cut. IMO, he's very concerned about his image and legacy in the long term. He's a self admitted huge fan of the game. I'm not so sure he wants to be known as the guy who destroyed the NFL as we know it today.

OTOH, he is a huge Redskins fan. Maybe he is doing God's work here, by blowing this thing up, forcing the NFL to drastically rewrite the rules in a free market fashion which would obviously be more beneficial for the Redskins than virtually any other team.

Nice revelation since I have gotten after Fatness for the same thing. Those that seem to be celebrating all these ruling recently appear to fall into some broad categories: Anti rich/ownership, prounion, or have their team they follow with a deep pockets owner (Redskins fans are the worst by far). Rather than looking at the affect this will have on the NFL as we have known it, these bias are being brought into the discussion way too much without looking at the ramifications for the league long term. For the 20 or so other teams not in a big market with a big spending spoiled rich owner this all sucks and will definitely reduce dramatically the popularity of the league and my interest in it.

Two small market clubs (Green Bay and Pittsburgh) played in the Superbowl last year (the year without a salary cap). And if a CBA is so important to the owners, then start acting like it. They blew up the last CBA, demanded an extra $1B off the top with no justification, and then mailed in the negotiations to get a new deal. I keep hearing from them that they really want a new CBA, but their actions are speaking way louder than their words.

Please stop this already. I've stated this before. Yes, they opted-out of the deal 2 years early (as was agreed to by the players) but it was extended several times before. There is no real difference between opting out of a 5 year deal 2 years early and a 3 year deal. The players are fortunate that the owners agreed to extend the CBA at all. This mess could have happened years ago. And if not for opting out, it would have happened in two years anyway after the CBA was set to expire.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

It was the only strategy the players had. They had to play hardball, because the owners were certainly prepared to. To NOT do that would have been a major sign of weakness. Before, the owners could wait and see who blinked first, knowing the players would have.

Funny, I thought the traditional hardball tactic of labor was the strike. Most unions wouldn't dream of decertifying because they'd lose their jobs and their shirts doing so.

most unions are gone because the companies just moved the manufcaturing jobs to china or taiwan

 

[David Dodds]

The endgame if two stubborn sides wish to see it:

- Add 2 games to the schedule starting in 2012 - Adds $500M in revenue to the pool

- Give this $500M to the owners off the top starting in 2012 in agreement for a 6 year CBA that contains costs and protect players (free agency in 5 years, remove franchise tags, keep draft, salary cap and minimums)

- The owners bail on the NFL network and sell the Thursday games which generates another $1B a year (where both parties benefit)

- Both sides want a rookie cap (at least for the top picks) as that makes more money available to veterans. I think this could be settled easily.

- Keep the majority of the old rules with small tweaks