Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[jbobbett]

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...

That TV contract expires for CBS, FOX, NBC after this season and for ESPN after 2013. Under free-for-all football Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are not going to share their TV revenue with the other teams. They will sign their own deals. I think the disparity will be much worse in the NFL than MLB. Baseball has a CBA and some restrictions on player movement (a draft, arbitration years, draft pick compensation for lost free agents, luxury tax). Free-for-all football would have none of those.On a given night the $36 million payroll KC Royals have a chance to beat the $202 million Yankees. I don't know if a $36MM Buffalo Bills would stand a chance against a $202MM Dallas Cowboys. Who would go to that game?I don't actually think any of this will happen, I surely hope not. But those are the implications. Under a lockout or strike the pain of missed games would bring the two sides together fairly quickly I would think. Is it possible that there is less pain with free market football and they might actually play a season under these rules while trying to negotiate to save the 2012 draft? It's at least possible.

 

[coolnerd]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/28/waiting-game-on-as-nfl-files-for-stay-pending-appeal/

Although the NFL is telling teams to open their facilities tomorrow morning, at the moment the league is waiting to see how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will rule on the NFL’s request for a stay pending appeal of Judge Susan Nelson’s order lifting the lockout.

The NFL has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite the appeal, and if that stay is granted (and ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio reported that the ruling for a temporary stay could come as soon as this afternoon), then we go into a holding pattern.

The next deadline from the courts is that the players have been directed to file a response to the motion for a stay by noon Central Time on Friday. After that, the league’s reply to the response is due by 9 a.m. Central on Monday.

At the moment, the league’s motion for a temporary stay remains pending before the court. And we remain waiting to see what will happen next.

My guess that tommorrow when (if) the league sets a date for the new league year to start, it will be mid next week at the earliest to give the 8th circuit do its thing.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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...

That TV contract expires for CBS, FOX, NBC after this season and for ESPN after 2013. Under free-for-all football Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are not going to share their TV revenue with the other teams. They will sign their own deals. I think the disparity will be much worse in the NFL than MLB. Baseball has a CBA and some restrictions on player movement (a draft, arbitration years, draft pick compensation for lost free agents, luxury tax). Free-for-all football would have none of those.On a given night the $36 million payroll KC Royals have a chance to beat the $202 million Yankees. I don't know if a $36MM Buffalo Bills would stand a chance against a $202MM Dallas Cowboys. Who would go to that game?I don't actually think any of this will happen, I surely hope not. But those are the implications. Under a lockout or strike the pain of missed games would bring the two sides together fairly quickly I would think. Is it possible that there is less pain with free market football and they might actually play a season under these rules while trying to negotiate to save the 2012 draft? It's at least possible.

didnt Dtv just sign a 10 year deal.Not sure Jerry Jones and Snyder will get all that much cash on their own, we are only talking about 16 games. And surely they wont be national. The Yankees has 162 games to play with in the largest city in america.

 

[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.

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

So.....Unions aren't always such a great thing after all? Workers often priced themselves out of a job! Sure, they gained higher wages at one time, but the future workers lost the chance to work at all. The NFLPA will make more money in a free market....now. BUt if the health of the league is ruined (parity is lost), the same will not be true in 10 years.I can't help but laugh at the irony of pro-Union folks also being "free market" folks, not to mention many of the same folks professing a love of capitalism. The three are not always very compatible.

 

[David Dodds]

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.

Yes the players were given no choice but to decertify.

 

[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

So.....Unions aren't always such a great thing after all? Workers often priced themselves out of a job! Sure, they gained higher wages at one time, but the future workers lost the chance to work at all. The NFLPA will make more money in a free market....now. BUt if the health of the league is ruined (parity is lost), the same will not be true in 10 years.I can't help but laugh at the irony of pro-Union folks also being "free market" folks, not to mention many of the same folks professing a love of capitalism. The three are not always very compatible.

No it becomes about cost to due business and make a profit.IF the NFL thinks they can get us to spend money on players they import from China, feel free

 

[3nOut]

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.

Not necessarily. The may not think they have a strong case, but a shot at winning. They have two options; return to the negotiating table now or to keep it in the coourt system (where the payers took it) and see if they lose before returning to the negotiating table. But if they win (however small chance it may be), they have more leverage.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

Yes the players were given no choice but to decertify.

I'm not certain the bolded is actually true, however, the players easily could have asked to extend. There were other options.

 

[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.

Not necessarily. The may not think they have a strong case, but a shot at winning. They have two options; return to the negotiating table now or to keep it in the coourt system (where the payers took it) and see if they lose before returning to the negotiating table. But if they win (however small chance it may be), they have more leverage.

they dont care if they lose in court Im starting to think, the longer it takes and the more appeals they can do the better for the owners. Now not issuing a Stay is a big problem, they dont want to be in contempt

 

[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

So.....Unions aren't always such a great thing after all? Workers often priced themselves out of a job! Sure, they gained higher wages at one time, but the future workers lost the chance to work at all. The NFLPA will make more money in a free market....now. BUt if the health of the league is ruined (parity is lost), the same will not be true in 10 years.I can't help but laugh at the irony of pro-Union folks also being "free market" folks, not to mention many of the same folks professing a love of capitalism. The three are not always very compatible.

No it becomes about cost to due business and make a profit.IF the NFL thinks they can get us to spend money on players they import from China, feel free

Btw Im not pro-union, I never have been in one and really dont care for them but I buy only american cars because I support my neighbors and my community

 

[coolnerd]

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

So.....Unions aren't always such a great thing after all? Workers often priced themselves out of a job! Sure, they gained higher wages at one time, but the future workers lost the chance to work at all. The NFLPA will make more money in a free market....now. BUt if the health of the league is ruined (parity is lost), the same will not be true in 10 years.I can't help but laugh at the irony of pro-Union folks also being "free market" folks, not to mention many of the same folks professing a love of capitalism. The three are not always very compatible.

Not surprising considering America is largley quasi-captalist (mostly consumerist)ecomony where there are many barriers to free trade and parts of the economy that mirror forms of socialism.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The NFL has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal and to expedite the appeal, and if that stay is granted (and ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio reported that the ruling for a temporary stay could come as soon as this afternoon), then we go into a holding pattern.The next deadline from the courts is that the players have been directed to file a response to the motion for a stay by noon Central Time on Friday. After that, the league’s reply to the response is due by 9 a.m. Central on Monday.

That seems a little weird. If the players' deadline to respond is tomorrow, why would a ruling come down "as soon as" today? I'd think a court would want to receive argument from both sides before ruling.

 

[roadkill1292]

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

I'm probably a minority of one on this issue but I think the rookie cap is the ticking time bomb in this whole deal. It won't go down as smoothly as it did in the NBA.

 

[massraider]

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.

The owners are quite comfortable with a strike as well. Give it a few weeks, and players start crossing.As for what most unions would do, what does that have to do with anything? Peyton Manning is more important to his boss that Joe the iron worker. You know that.

 

[David Dodds]

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.

Yes the players were given no choice but to decertify.

I'm not certain the bolded is actually true, however, the players easily could have asked to extend. There were other options.

They are in mediation now. The owners were given a redo on their blunder with mediation back open. If they seriously want a CBA, then make it happen.

 

[massraider]

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

I'm probably a minority of one on this issue but I think the rookie cap is the ticking time bomb in this whole deal. It won't go down as smoothly as it did in the NBA.

Eh, I think moth sides are fine with it. I don't think it'll have the affect fans do, but whatever. There's only about 10 guys that really make a ton of money in the draft every year, and I don't think those salaries make that big a difference in the scheme of things. Every year, teams have drastically overpaid and underpaid guys, I doubt it makes a difference how old those players are.

 

[jbobbett]

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...

That TV contract expires for CBS, FOX, NBC after this season and for ESPN after 2013. Under free-for-all football Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are not going to share their TV revenue with the other teams. They will sign their own deals. I think the disparity will be much worse in the NFL than MLB. Baseball has a CBA and some restrictions on player movement (a draft, arbitration years, draft pick compensation for lost free agents, luxury tax). Free-for-all football would have none of those.On a given night the $36 million payroll KC Royals have a chance to beat the $202 million Yankees. I don't know if a $36MM Buffalo Bills would stand a chance against a $202MM Dallas Cowboys. Who would go to that game?I don't actually think any of this will happen, I surely hope not. But those are the implications. Under a lockout or strike the pain of missed games would bring the two sides together fairly quickly I would think. Is it possible that there is less pain with free market football and they might actually play a season under these rules while trying to negotiate to save the 2012 draft? It's at least possible.

didnt Dtv just sign a 10 year deal.Not sure Jerry Jones and Snyder will get all that much cash on their own, we are only talking about 16 games. And surely they wont be national. The Yankees has 162 games to play with in the largest city in america.

Good point, I forgot about DirecTV. Their contract runs through 2014. They are paying $1B/year. The others are paying between $1.1B and $600M. I suppose each team gets 1/30th of that? I don't know how it would look but I would think JJ and DS could find ways of capitalizing on their teams' greater popularity and national following to get a bigger share. When they start pulling away from the rest of the league they will have even more power.

 

[roarlions]

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.

How were the players supposed to strike when the owners were planning to lock them out? The lock out kinda took away that option, dontcha think?

 

[Ksquared]

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.

Yes the players were given no choice but to decertify.

I'm not certain the bolded is actually true, however, the players easily could have asked to extend. There were other options.

They are in mediation now. The owners were given a redo on their blunder with mediation back open. If they seriously want a CBA, then make it happen.

Oh that's whats wrong. Lets just make it "happen". IMO, other than late in the original NLB mediation - there has been no negotiations by either side. Just a firming of the original positions by both sides. I will ask again, please show me the difference between the position the NFLPA took in August and the one they left the table with. You won't find any basic difference (at least the owners moved late in the mediation) in the NFLPA position. They never negotiated - they demanded things (10 yrs of books, etc), but never negotiated. Being an ex-negotiator, if one side demands something you do not want to give, then you ask for more in other areas you can use as chips to give away later and get most of what you want. The players never said, so you want this extra $$$ off the top. Ok, then we want lifetime health coverage, no OTAs, minimum salary of $650,000 (or more), training camp starts 2 weeks later, no ability to cut players at any time during the season (must finish paying them the year's salary), etc. There are all kinds of issue they could have offered that the owners would never have gone for to use in negotiations, but everything I have been able to read state the NFLPA just kept saying over and over show us the books or else. They never intend to negotiate IMO either - now or in the future. Why should they with what the legal system has given them? They should ask for much more.

 

[roarlions]

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.

Pretty sure this was addressed either in this thread or the decertify thread, but the NFLPA did make counter-proposals in the winter and during the negotiations before decertifying. For example, it was reported that the NFLPA offered to accept 50% of revenues without any cost deductions by the owners. I think they have been receiving between 50% and 55% of the revenues when the cost deductions are accounted for, so their proposal probably would have saved the owners a few % compared to what had been paid during the last CBA and would not have required any opening of the owner's books at all.It was also reported that the players were willing to agree to a longer time period for the new CBA (10 years?) and that they were willing to accept fixed salary caps rather than a cap that would be determined from year to year. There was haggling left to be done on the actual fixed salary cap amounts and what would be done if league revenues grew faster than projected by the owners, but the concept of fixed cap amounts seemed to be something they were considering agreeing to.I'd say those represent changes in the NFLPA position compared to last year.

 

[Orange Crush]

That TV contract expires for CBS, FOX, NBC after this season and for ESPN after 2013. Under free-for-all football Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are not going to share their TV revenue with the other teams. They will sign their own deals. I think the disparity will be much worse in the NFL than MLB. Baseball has a CBA and some restrictions on player movement (a draft, arbitration years, draft pick compensation for lost free agents, luxury tax). Free-for-all football would have none of those.

On a given night the $36 million payroll KC Royals have a chance to beat the $202 million Yankees. I don't know if a $36MM Buffalo Bills would stand a chance against a $202MM Dallas Cowboys. Who would go to that game?

I don't actually think any of this will happen, I surely hope not. But those are the implications. Under a lockout or strike the pain of missed games would bring the two sides together fairly quickly I would think. Is it possible that there is less pain with free market football and they might actually play a season under these rules while trying to negotiate to save the 2012 draft? It's at least possible.

From the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws:

Article X - Broadcasting and Television

Contract Conditions

10.1 Any contract entered into by any club for telecasting or broadcasting its games, and the sponsor or sponsors of each game telecast or broadcast pursuant to such a contract, must be approved in writing by the Commissioner in advance of such telecast or broadcast.

Television Income

10.3 All regular season (and preseason network) television income will be divided equally among all member clubs of the League regardless of the source of such income, except that the member clubs may, by unanimous agreement, provide otherwise in a specific television contract or contracts.

So the only way for the Cowboys or the Redskins to get their own TV deals that paid them exclusively, they would need the consent of the NFL commissioner and the unanimous consent of every other team owner.

Good luck with that.

 

[jbobbett]

For example, it was reported that the NFLPA offered to accept 50% of revenues without any cost deductions by the owners.

If that is true it's the most disingenuous thing I've read yet (well, it at least rivals the League's Lockout protection TV contract). Who would invest in their team if half of the revenue goes to someone else? It's hard enough to justify investment in a business setting if the investor gets all the benefit.The owners and players both have to "invest" to grow the game. The owners wanted $2B set aside for that. I am guessing they couldn't convince the players that it was actually for investment. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do...

 

[Idiot Boxer]

That TV contract expires for CBS, FOX, NBC after this season and for ESPN after 2013. Under free-for-all football Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are not going to share their TV revenue with the other teams. They will sign their own deals. I think the disparity will be much worse in the NFL than MLB. Baseball has a CBA and some restrictions on player movement (a draft, arbitration years, draft pick compensation for lost free agents, luxury tax). Free-for-all football would have none of those.

On a given night the $36 million payroll KC Royals have a chance to beat the $202 million Yankees. I don't know if a $36MM Buffalo Bills would stand a chance against a $202MM Dallas Cowboys. Who would go to that game?

I don't actually think any of this will happen, I surely hope not. But those are the implications. Under a lockout or strike the pain of missed games would bring the two sides together fairly quickly I would think. Is it possible that there is less pain with free market football and they might actually play a season under these rules while trying to negotiate to save the 2012 draft? It's at least possible.

From the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws:

Article X - Broadcasting and Television

Contract Conditions

10.1 Any contract entered into by any club for telecasting or broadcasting its games, and the sponsor or sponsors of each game telecast or broadcast pursuant to such a contract, must be approved in writing by the Commissioner in advance of such telecast or broadcast.

Television Income

10.3 All regular season (and preseason network) television income will be divided equally among all member clubs of the League regardless of the source of such income, except that the member clubs may, by unanimous agreement, provide otherwise in a specific television contract or contracts.

So the only way for the Cowboys or the Redskins to get their own TV deals that paid them exclusively, they would need the consent of the NFL commissioner and the unanimous consent of every other team owner.

Good luck with that.

good to know.

 

[roarlions]

For example, it was reported that the NFLPA offered to accept 50% of revenues without any cost deductions by the owners.

If that is true it's the most disingenuous thing I've read yet (well, it at least rivals the League's Lockout protection TV contract). Who would invest in their team if half of the revenue goes to someone else? It's hard enough to justify investment in a business setting if the investor gets all the benefit.The owners and players both have to "invest" to grow the game. The owners wanted $2B set aside for that. I am guessing they couldn't convince the players that it was actually for investment. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do...

The players were already getting over 50% of revenues during the last CBA when the league was very profitable.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Who would invest in their team if half of the revenue goes to someone else?

People who like money? The players have gotten more than 50% of the revenues in the past, but the owners have still gotten a great return on their investments.Whether something like that can work in the future as well as it has in the past is up for discussion; but there's no reason to reject it just on principle.

 

[Premier]

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.

You were also adamant that Nelson was going to issue a stay when it was patently clear she was going to do no such thing. You're not exactly the board legal eagle here.

 

[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.

Pretty sure this was addressed either in this thread or the decertify thread, but the NFLPA did make counter-proposals in the winter and during the negotiations before decertifying. For example, it was reported that the NFLPA offered to accept 50% of revenues without any cost deductions by the owners. I think they have been receiving between 50% and 55% of the revenues when the cost deductions are accounted for, so their proposal probably would have saved the owners a few % compared to what had been paid during the last CBA and would not have required any opening of the owner's books at all.It was also reported that the players were willing to agree to a longer time period for the new CBA (10 years?) and that they were willing to accept fixed salary caps rather than a cap that would be determined from year to year. There was haggling left to be done on the actual fixed salary cap amounts and what would be done if league revenues grew faster than projected by the owners, but the concept of fixed cap amounts seemed to be something they were considering agreeing to.I'd say those represent changes in the NFLPA position compared to last year.

My bad. I do remember now about the 50% number being offered from the revenues brought in with some type of a poison pill in it though. But that is what I would have expected more of. Both sides want a long term deal so that is not negotiating to deal with the issues no one is agreeing. But I am almost certain the fixed salary cap was a possibility only when the owners opened up their books.

 

[roarlions]

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.

Pretty sure this was addressed either in this thread or the decertify thread, but the NFLPA did make counter-proposals in the winter and during the negotiations before decertifying. For example, it was reported that the NFLPA offered to accept 50% of revenues without any cost deductions by the owners. I think they have been receiving between 50% and 55% of the revenues when the cost deductions are accounted for, so their proposal probably would have saved the owners a few % compared to what had been paid during the last CBA and would not have required any opening of the owner's books at all.It was also reported that the players were willing to agree to a longer time period for the new CBA (10 years?) and that they were willing to accept fixed salary caps rather than a cap that would be determined from year to year. There was haggling left to be done on the actual fixed salary cap amounts and what would be done if league revenues grew faster than projected by the owners, but the concept of fixed cap amounts seemed to be something they were considering agreeing to.I'd say those represent changes in the NFLPA position compared to last year.

My bad. I do remember now about the 50% number being offered from the revenues brought in with some type of a poison pill in it though. But that is what I would have expected more of. Both sides want a long term deal so that is not negotiating to deal with the issues no one is agreeing. But I am almost certain the fixed salary cap was a possibility only when the owners opened up their books.

That could be true about the fixed salary cap offer, not sure if the owners would have been deducting any expenses under that scenario or not.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

You The owners were also adamant that Nelson was going to issue a stay when it was patently clear she was going to do no such thing. You're The owners are not exactly the board legal eagle here.

Wood was talking about the Owner's beliefs. Not sure why the personal attack on him.

 

[fatness]

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 see. I biased and blinded, but you're not. The players and De Smith asked for information. The NFL didn't come in with anything new until 10 minutes before the deadline. You see that as Smith derailing the negotiations and I don't.

 

[Ksquared]

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 see. I biased and blinded, but you're not. The players and De Smith asked for information. The NFL didn't come in with anything new until 10 minutes before the deadline. You see that as Smith derailing the negotiations and I don't.

Since I am biased according to you anyway, I have to ask about the revisionist history that I believe is occurring here. Where did this 10 min before deadline "talking point" come from? Does anyone remember that while the Owner's representatives were going through their last offer the Union decertified but did not inform them. The decertification came about before 4 PM and the CBA without an extension would not end until 5 PM. Last second was not an issue since a couple of weeks before the Union had a court clerk on the line @ 11:55 PM before they agreed to an extension.

 

[fatness]

Last year

$9 billion total

$4.2 billion to owners ($1 billion plus 40% of the remaining $8 billion)

$4.8 billion to players (60% of the $8 billion)

Owner's proposal

$9 billion total

$5.7 billion to owners ($2.4 billion plus 50% of the remaining $6.6 billion)

$3.3 billion to players (50% of the $6.6 billion)

Are those numbers essentially correct?

 

[Premier]

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.

You The owners were also adamant that Nelson was going to issue a stay when it was patently clear she was going to do no such thing. You're The owners are not exactly the board legal eagle here.

Wood was talking about the Owner's beliefs. Not sure why the personal attack on him.

Other than the post quoted that's not the way I read his replies in here. Came off quite condescending, actually.

 

[Hoosier16]

Last year$9 billion total$4.2 billion to owners ($1 billion plus 40% of the remaining $8 billion)$4.8 billion to players (60% of the $8 billion)Owner's proposal$9 billion total$5.7 billion to owners ($2.4 billion plus 50% of the remaining $6.6 billion)$3.3 billion to players (50% of the $6.6 billion)Are those numbers essentially correct?

Is your 1st trade offer always your final offer?

 

[fatness]

Since I am biased according to you anyway, I have to ask about the revisionist history that I believe is occurring here. Where did this 10 min before deadline "talking point" come from?

From the news.

Last week, a new front opened in the NFL labor battle as Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith swapped letters. Goodell started with a letter to all players explaining the league's last-minute offer,

link1:20 pm on the last day of negotiations, still waiting on last offer from owners.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

You The owners were also adamant that Nelson was going to issue a stay when it was patently clear she was going to do no such thing. You're The owners are not exactly the board legal eagle here.

Wood was talking about the Owner's beliefs. Not sure why the personal attack on him.

Other than the post quoted that's not the way I read his replies in here. Came off quite condescending, actually.

Wow. Passionate topic for a lot of people. IMO Wood's probably been the most neutral. MT, neutral with a slight bias. OC probably the most knowledgeable with a slightly greater bias.

 

[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.

You The owners were also adamant that Nelson was going to issue a stay when it was patently clear she was going to do no such thing. You're The owners are not exactly the board legal eagle here.

Wood was talking about the Owner's beliefs. Not sure why the personal attack on him.

Other than the post quoted that's not the way I read his replies in here. Came off quite condescending, actually.

Shame you took it that way, because it wasn't meant. If anything, I've been of the mind that it'll get settled when it gets settled. The only thing I feel strongly about is that when the dust settles, we'll have a full season. Also, re: my being a "legal eagle", I think I've been on record as saying I'm far from that. I spoke to a good friend, who is a corporate litigator, and HE thought under the circumstances the stay would be granted. Obviously he's not alone in that view, but Judge Nelson saw it differently.I'm rolling with the punches here. On a selfish note, I want business back NOW because a) it helps my favorite team move a choice commodity in Kevin Kolb for picks that might help us now, and b) it helps FBG have a normal season and let's us roll up our sleeves and get to work.

 

[Ksquared]

Since I am biased according to you anyway, I have to ask about the revisionist history that I believe is occurring here. Where did this 10 min before deadline "talking point" come from?

From the news.

Last week, a new front opened in the NFL labor battle as Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith swapped letters. Goodell started with a letter to all players explaining the league's last-minute offer,

link

"last minute offer" - figure of speech down..... When the Union decertified, the owners proposal was being reviewed by the Union. The owners were irate that they submitted this new proposal and spent over an hour reviewing it with the Union reps only to be informed they had decertified over an hour earlier. This all occur at a point where the Union could have extended the deadline for a day, week, etc. The last minute proposals are always the ones that give the most, but the Union decided to decertify. It would have been funny if the owners would have known the Union was decertifying while they presented their last proposal and put in extremely beneficial things the Union wanted. Was it a delaying tactic by the Owners, maybe but there were some pretty significant movements by the owners in that last proposal. No question both sides have made some really bad and stupid mistakes, but lets be sure we understand the Union walked away from the table with a new proposal being introduced.

 

[Premier]

No biggie. Been an informative thread. Haven't busted Wood's balls for a while anyways.

Bringing it home for Jerome. CHEERS

 

[Jason Wood]

No biggie. Been an informative thread. Haven't busted Wood's balls for a while anyways. Bringing it home for Jerome. CHEERS

Awwwwwwwwwwww dang, you gotta bring Jerome into this? :( (R.I.P.)

 

[Premier]

That used to be your calling card man, not mine.

 

[Jason Wood]

That used to be your calling card man, not mine.

True enough.Cheers.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Last year

$9 billion total

$4.2 billion to owners ($1 billion plus 40% of the remaining $8 billion)

$4.8 billion to players (60% of the $8 billion)

Owner's proposal

$9 billion total

$5.7 billion to owners ($2.4 billion plus 50% of the remaining $6.6 billion)

$3.3 billion to players (50% of the $6.6 billion)

Are those numbers essentially correct?

Damn.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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 agree that D. Smith was brought in with the intention of litigating and getting this to the courts.However, he was brought in after the owners had already sent several strong signals that they intended to fight to the death to break the power of the players' union by:--opting out of a CBA that was both increasing revenues, and increasing the value of their franchises by about ~10% per year--bringing in a labor lawyer who had been with the NHL owners when they locked the players out for a season--negotiating an unlawful TV deal specifically with an eye towards allowing them to thrive during a lockoutNow maybe I'm more Old Testament than most, but if my traditional enemy masses an army on my border, starts lobbing missiles into my cities and announces over the radio that it's going invade any day now I'm going to take some pretty strong defensive action.I think that's how to see the hiring of D. Smith: as a reaction to the strong signals the owners were sending that they intended to strongarm their way to a bigger slice of the pie. Because Smith was hired after the owners had made their intentions crystal clear.And, FWIW, I'm also Old Testament enough that if my historical enemy starts a war and I'm lucky enough to drive them back across the border, I'm not going to stop just because they're back on their own turf. I'm going to drive them into the sea, burn their crops and salt the ground. i.e. I'd absolutely follow through with the anti-trust cases this time. Non-negotiable even after we negotiate the next CBA.

 

[Ksquared]

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 agree that D. Smith was brought in with the intention of litigating and getting this to the courts.However, he was brought in after the owners had already sent several strong signals that they intended to fight to the death to break the power of the players' union by:--opting out of a CBA that was both increasing revenues, and increasing the value of their franchises by about ~10% per year--bringing in a labor lawyer who had been with the NHL owners when they locked the players out for a season--negotiating an unlawful TV deal specifically with an eye towards allowing them to thrive during a lockoutNow maybe I'm more Old Testament than most, but if my traditional enemy masses an army on my border, starts lobbing missiles into my cities and announces over the radio that it's going invade any day now I'm going to take some pretty strong defensive action.I think that's how to see the hiring of D. Smith: as a reaction to the strong signals the owners were sending that they intended to strongarm their way to a bigger slice of the pie. Because Smith was hired after the owners had made their intentions crystal clear.And, FWIW, I'm also Old Testament enough that if my historical enemy starts a war and I'm lucky enough to drive them back across the border, I'm not going to stop just because they're back on their own turf. I'm going to drive them into the sea, burn their crops and salt the ground. i.e. I'd absolutely follow through with the anti-trust cases this time. Non-negotiable even after we negotiate the next CBA.

And I understand this sentiment, but what would happen if you realized your "salting the earth/drive the enemy into the sea" would make your own existence less profitable? How about the fact that you have to rely (at some level) on this enemy for your meal money?I just love this hatred that many have towards owners/rich/bosses and are quite willing to "cut their nose off to spite their face" as the saying goes. I have come down on the owners side originally for two reasons 1)did not feel the players were willing to negotiate - they were quite happy with the current setup and 2) long term I felt the owner's position was what would keep the NFL closest to what it currently is. But as my understanding of the laws in this case and one decision goes against the owners after another, I have a third reason I am starting to get completely behind the ownerships position. With the rulings that have been handed down, I cannot believe someone that has invested millions into a business has so little control. It is quite clear that the players should get anything they want, if not just file a collusionary lawsuit. I don't feel the owners have any position in negotiations from this point forward. And I guarantee the players and their Union have very little care about the future of the NFL, just how they can maximize their next paycheck.So I hope the "slave" Adrian Petersen gets to be required to attend meetings/workouts 10+ months a year in Minnesota, a 20 game schedule gets implemented, training camps start in June, Snyder has his 100+ roster, and watch the whole situation spin out of control. These players will get to start taking PED if their company/team does not test for them, because I don't see how the NFL can fine or control any one in the future. Dirty shot, late hits, ending players careers - as long as it happens to someone on the other team, there should be no ramifications to the offender (maybe getting tossed for the rest of the game), but no fines or suspensions unless the individual team makes the decision. Ah the fun we can have in the next few years.....I am coming around to the true nuclear option the players have been heading toward. Complete free market setup. Let it go.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And I understand this sentiment, but what would happen if you realized your "salting the earth/drive the enemy into the sea" would make your own existence less profitable? How about the fact that you have to rely (at some level) on this enemy for your meal money?

Yeah - I don't believe any of that is true. As I understand it (and feel free to produce evidence to the contrary), that hasn't been the experience in other leagues without caps. The distribution of money would certainly change, but likewise the total salary would almost certainly increase. As a fan I actually support the CBA and like that small-market teams can compete.And if I were a player I'd still do a CBA. I'd just inflict as much legal and financial damage for past actions as I possibly could in addition to a new CBA. So that 25 years from now when the owners forget the lessons of 2011 and feel the testosterone and greed coursing through their veins again they have a really good reason to take a deep breath and find someone else to mess with.

 

[Ksquared]

And I understand this sentiment, but what would happen if you realized your "salting the earth/drive the enemy into the sea" would make your own existence less profitable? How about the fact that you have to rely (at some level) on this enemy for your meal money?

Yeah - I don't believe any of that is true. As I understand it (and feel free to produce evidence to the contrary), that hasn't been the experience in other leagues without caps. The distribution of money would certainly change, but likewise the total salary would almost certainly increase. As a fan I actually support the CBA and like that small-market teams can compete.And if I were a player I'd still do a CBA. I'd just inflict as much legal and financial damage for past actions as I possibly could in addition to a new CBA. So that 25 years from now when the owners forget the lessons of 2011 and feel the testosterone and greed coursing through their veins again they have a really good reason to take a deep breath and find someone else to mess with.

I guess what I don't understand is the players are no less greedy in this process. They are "fine" with the arrangement as it is now (which quite often is the position of management in labor issues) and in my opinion have not negotiated. Why? They have what the basically want at this time. The problem with supporting this position is are the same people willing to let management that is happy with a current labor agreement not negotiate in the future. I have a strange feeling the answer would be a resounding no.

 

[thayman]

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.

The last 10 world series involved 10 small market teams.

 

[Orange Crush]

League year likely to start Monday with free agency, details to be announced sometime during the day tomorrow (Friday). Per NFL.com.

No word yet on cap, franchise tags, RFAs, or any other details.

 

[fatness]

League year likely to start Monday with free agency, details to be announced sometime during the day tomorrow (Friday). Per NFL.com.

No word yet on cap, franchise tags, RFAs, or any other details.

Pretty good timing by the NFL on all that. They got the season started before the draft which they had to do or the crowd would've been (more) hostile at the draft tonight when the draft itself should be the show. Vets reporting tomorrow, details being announced tomorrow -- good timing if you ask me.