Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

OK....and if I was an owner facing that, I'd fire every player and start from scratch. Void every contract.

And if there were a draft over the next five years or so, your team would probably have the first pick every year.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

Do you think that the final offer made to the players prior to the decertification was fair?

Had they given it to the players with enough time to actually discuss it....probably. The NFLPA had to either extend the clock, sign a new deal or decertify on that Friday when it was offered. The owners waited until the last second (literally with about an hour left), never offered to extend the talks and threw together a proposal with all kinds of new things that they knew the players would not be able to digest in order to sign that day. It was all a charade. The owners absolutely forced the players to decertify or the lockout would be on. Since then the owners said that any future offers would keep being lower as more time is missed.This is why I feel like this thing was rigged from day 1. The owners stand to gain billions of dollars per year if they redo everything to how they want it. When challenged to show why they need the extra dollars off the top, they provided no documentation. Their last "offer" even came way down on the needed $1 to $1.5 Billion off the top substantially showing that this number was indeed made up.Funny how this the stay needs to be in place, but this also needs to be expedited. Why is that? The owners are orchestrating this to "solve" this in late July or early August. Nice way to put every one of the athletes in harm's way in an increasingly violent game. No practices, no medical treatments, no one knowing the playbook, etc. Awesome. This is going to be great football for everyone this year.

I won't claim that the owners aren't guilty of doing anything in their power to get what they want out of these negotiations. I would say that was true of both sides. I also recall hearing on several occasions the owners reducing their demands, while the players weren't budging an inch. To say that their last proposal was made to force the hand of the players is to completely discount that during the negotiations only one side moved at all.And I agree with you that making a final proposal an hour before the deadline is not giving the other time enough time to react. How is that different from the players making specific demands to get 10 years worth of financials an hour before the deadline? I think it's fair to say that the players were being a little disingenuous at that point. IIRC, they demanded that with a threat to decertify instead of asking for an extension to consider the last offer.Then again, I wasn't in the room. I can't claim to understand the truth of the details, because both sides are telling a different story. My only point in asking that, IMO both sides had already scripted how they were going to get to the point we are at right now, but to me it was the players that dictated the course by not coming to the table with anything.EDIT: I just wanted to add that i appreciate your accessibility on the subject. :tup:

 

[David Dodds]

Do you think that the final offer made to the players prior to the decertification was fair?

Had they given it to the players with enough time to actually discuss it....probably. The NFLPA had to either extend the clock, sign a new deal or decertify on that Friday when it was offered. The owners waited until the last second (literally with about an hour left), never offered to extend the talks and threw together a proposal with all kinds of new things that they knew the players would not be able to digest in order to sign that day. It was all a charade. The owners absolutely forced the players to decertify or the lockout would be on. Since then the owners said that any future offers would keep being lower as more time is missed.This is why I feel like this thing was rigged from day 1. The owners stand to gain billions of dollars per year if they redo everything to how they want it. When challenged to show why they need the extra dollars off the top, they provided no documentation. Their last "offer" even came way down on the needed $1 to $1.5 Billion off the top substantially showing that this number was indeed made up.Funny how this the stay needs to be in place, but this also needs to be expedited. Why is that? The owners are orchestrating this to "solve" this in late July or early August. Nice way to put every one of the athletes in harm's way in an increasingly violent game. No practices, no medical treatments, no one knowing the playbook, etc. Awesome. This is going to be great football for everyone this year.

I won't claim that the owners aren't guilty of doing anything in their power to get what they want out of these negotiations. I would say that was true of both sides. I also recall hearing on several occasions the owners reducing their demands, while the players weren't budging an inch. To say that their last proposal was made to force the hand of the players is to completely discount that during the negotiations only one side moved at all.And I agree with you that making a final proposal an hour before the deadline is not giving the other time enough time to react. How is that different from the players making specific demands to get 10 years worth of financials an hour before the deadline? I think it's fair to say that the players were being a little disingenuous at that point. IIRC, they demanded that with a threat to decertify instead of asking for an extension to consider the last offer.Then again, I wasn't in the room. I can't claim to understand the truth of the details, because both sides are telling a different story. My only point in asking that, IMO both sides had already scripted how they were going to get to the point we are at right now, but to me it was the players that dictated the course by not coming to the table with anything.EDIT: I just wanted to add that i appreciate your accessibility on the subject. :tup:

You do realize the players did not want more, right? The owners wanted another $1 to $1.5B off the top and then to also give the players less in the revenue split. Since they wanted a lot more in a new CBA while the players were trying to play goalie (and just hold on to what they had), don't you think the owners needed to make a case for that money? You ask for ten years hoping to get 3 years worth of data.The owners never attempted to show why they needed the extra money. That led to major trust issues and they are as strong as ever. Their 11th hour deal really wasn't a deal. It was designed to turn the public against the players. And it worked for awhile. Recent polls now have most of the fans siding with the players. From where I sit the owners are going to keep reducing their offers to the players and if the players don't accept then we will lose the season.Right now I suspect we will miss at least a few games this year. That's because the league has to give a few weeks for free agency to play out, some form of training camps and preseason games to be played before the season can begin. And right now we are facing a lockout lasting at least until July based on the stay getting granted today.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Do you think that the final offer made to the players prior to the decertification was fair?

Had they given it to the players with enough time to actually discuss it....probably. The NFLPA had to either extend the clock, sign a new deal or decertify on that Friday when it was offered. The owners waited until the last second (literally with about an hour left), never offered to extend the talks and threw together a proposal with all kinds of new things that they knew the players would not be able to digest in order to sign that day. It was all a charade. The owners absolutely forced the players to decertify or the lockout would be on. Since then the owners said that any future offers would keep being lower as more time is missed.This is why I feel like this thing was rigged from day 1. The owners stand to gain billions of dollars per year if they redo everything to how they want it. When challenged to show why they need the extra dollars off the top, they provided no documentation. Their last "offer" even came way down on the needed $1 to $1.5 Billion off the top substantially showing that this number was indeed made up.Funny how this the stay needs to be in place, but this also needs to be expedited. Why is that? The owners are orchestrating this to "solve" this in late July or early August. Nice way to put every one of the athletes in harm's way in an increasingly violent game. No practices, no medical treatments, no one knowing the playbook, etc. Awesome. This is going to be great football for everyone this year.

I won't claim that the owners aren't guilty of doing anything in their power to get what they want out of these negotiations. I would say that was true of both sides. I also recall hearing on several occasions the owners reducing their demands, while the players weren't budging an inch. To say that their last proposal was made to force the hand of the players is to completely discount that during the negotiations only one side moved at all.And I agree with you that making a final proposal an hour before the deadline is not giving the other time enough time to react. How is that different from the players making specific demands to get 10 years worth of financials an hour before the deadline? I think it's fair to say that the players were being a little disingenuous at that point. IIRC, they demanded that with a threat to decertify instead of asking for an extension to consider the last offer.Then again, I wasn't in the room. I can't claim to understand the truth of the details, because both sides are telling a different story. My only point in asking that, IMO both sides had already scripted how they were going to get to the point we are at right now, but to me it was the players that dictated the course by not coming to the table with anything.EDIT: I just wanted to add that i appreciate your accessibility on the subject. :tup:

You do realize the players did not want more, right? The owners wanted another $1 to $1.5B off the top and then to also give the players less in the revenue split. Since they wanted a lot more in a new CBA while the players were trying to play goalie (and just hold on to what they had), don't you think the owners needed to make a case for that money? You ask for ten years hoping to get 3 years worth of data.The owners never attempted to show why they needed the extra money. That led to major trust issues and they are as strong as ever. Their 11th hour deal really wasn't a deal. It was designed to turn the public against the players. And it worked for awhile. Recent polls now have most of the fans siding with the players. From where I sit the owners are going to keep reducing their offers to the players and if the players don't accept then we will lose the season.Right now I suspect we will miss at least a few games this year. That's because the league has to give a few weeks for free agency to play out, some form of training camps and preseason games to be played before the season can begin. And right now we are facing a lockout lasting at least until July based on the stay getting granted today.

You do realized the owners offered financial information, through a third party auditor. Which could have provided, in large part, the ability for them to see 'the need' and potentially even pose some questions back to the ownership. The ownership just wasn't going to give unfettered access.

 

[cobalt_27]

You do realize the players did not want more, right? The owners wanted another $1 to $1.5B off the top and then to also give the players less in the revenue split. Since they wanted a lot more in a new CBA while the players were trying to play goalie (and just hold on to what they had), don't you think the owners needed to make a case for that money? You ask for ten years hoping to get 3 years worth of data.The owners never attempted to show why they needed the extra money. That led to major trust issues and they are as strong as ever. Their 11th hour deal really wasn't a deal. It was designed to turn the public against the players. And it worked for awhile. Recent polls now have most of the fans siding with the players. From where I sit the owners are going to keep reducing their offers to the players and if the players don't accept then we will lose the season.Right now I suspect we will miss at least a few games this year. That's because the league has to give a few weeks for free agency to play out, some form of training camps and preseason games to be played before the season can begin. And right now we are facing a lockout lasting at least until July based on the stay getting granted today.

You do realized the owners offered financial information, through a third party auditor. Which could have provided, in large part, the ability for them to see 'the need' and potentially even pose some questions back to the ownership. The ownership just wasn't going to give unfettered access.

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)...and the bottom line was that the salary cap STILL was guaranteed to increase every year from the $127 in 2009 to $141 this year and $161 in 2014. The players were never asked to take a "paycut" as they claim. Far be it from that, they were getting a raise, but it just wasn't tied to revenues, which is what they wanted. It wasn't enough of a pay raise for them (or potential for a pay raise). So, they put the season at risk by decertifying and litigating this thing.

 

[fatness]

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)

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)

 

[Rockchild]

That's exactly the point I was making. The player was protected under CBA rules of that team activity. Brees isn't protected, but the owner is also risking his players injury under conditions that he cannot optimize or control. Those players are investments/commodities to the owner, and he should have the right to expect reasonable protection of his investment, with players undergoing activities under direct supervision.

Not sure I get your point. Generally, players who AREN'T getting appropriate excercise are more likely to be injured when football resumes. That's one of the purposes of OTAs to begin with. ALso, players like Brees who know their teams playbooks inside out can effectively run an OTA/practice without the coaches needing to be involved. BY doing so, he places his team in a advantageous position compared to teams without a leader taking charge w/out coaches. Players dont need a coach to tell them not to drill if they pull something....if anything players will be easier on themselves, taking fewer chances.I see absolutely no downside for owners...no reaosn in the world why they would be even remotely upset about a player taking charge and doing this. The owners' getting all the + upside of OTAs, with only slightly more risk than is normal. Heck, if I were an owner, I'd give him a bonus for it!

A billion dollar bonus?

 

[Romulan]

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)

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)

 

[cobalt_27]

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)

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)

So, are you're saying the salary cap was going down?

 

[fatness]

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)

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)

So, are you're saying the salary cap was going down?

Your confusion about this should have ended days ago in this topic.We did this once

When the cap was 127 in 2009 and the owners offered a cap of 141 in 2011 and 161 by 2014, it's difficult for me to embrace the players' position that they are being asked to take a "paycut."

You're comparing apples to oranges here. The $127M # you quote in 2009 was the salary cap. The 141 and 161 numbers you quote for the later years were total player compensation, i.e. salaries plus benefits. Benefits averaged in 2009 approximately $27M per year. Which means the 2011 and 2014 numbers correspond to a salary cap of $114M and $134M (and possibly less as benefits include health care costs and those just keep going up). So the owners' final offer would have meant an immediate 10% cut in salaries and a 2014 salary cap possibly less than the 2009 salary cap. And this was their final "good" offer. Their initial offer was a cut of 20%. See John Clayton for more details.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

IB, I'm not sure why you're trying, anymore. The owners offered a pay raise to the players that wasn't high enough for them--forget all this $1B/$2B off the top, that's a new mechanism the owners wanted to have to guarantee funds for expenses (which seems perfectly sensible to me)...and the bottom line was that the salary cap STILL was guaranteed to increase every year from the $127 in 2009 to $141 this year and $161 in 2014. The players were never asked to take a "paycut" as they claim. Far be it from that, they were getting a raise,

You've been corrected on this untrue statement a few times already, but you keep presenting it. Not really very helpful.

 

[renesauz]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

OK....and if I was an owner facing that, I'd fire every player and start from scratch. Void every contract.

And if there were a draft over the next five years or so, your team would probably have the first pick every year.

I quite obviously meant EVERY team fire EVERY player.

 

[thayman]

Do you think that the final offer made to the players prior to the decertification was fair?

Had they given it to the players with enough time to actually discuss it....probably. The NFLPA had to either extend the clock, sign a new deal or decertify on that Friday when it was offered. The owners waited until the last second (literally with about an hour left), never offered to extend the talks and threw together a proposal with all kinds of new things that they knew the players would not be able to digest in order to sign that day. It was all a charade. The owners absolutely forced the players to decertify or the lockout would be on. Since then the owners said that any future offers would keep being lower as more time is missed.This is why I feel like this thing was rigged from day 1. The owners stand to gain billions of dollars per year if they redo everything to how they want it. When challenged to show why they need the extra dollars off the top, they provided no documentation. Their last "offer" even came way down on the needed $1 to $1.5 Billion off the top substantially showing that this number was indeed made up.Funny how this the stay needs to be in place, but this also needs to be expedited. Why is that? The owners are orchestrating this to "solve" this in late July or early August. Nice way to put every one of the athletes in harm's way in an increasingly violent game. No practices, no medical treatments, no one knowing the playbook, etc. Awesome. This is going to be great football for everyone this year.

I won't claim that the owners aren't guilty of doing anything in their power to get what they want out of these negotiations. I would say that was true of both sides. I also recall hearing on several occasions the owners reducing their demands, while the players weren't budging an inch. To say that their last proposal was made to force the hand of the players is to completely discount that during the negotiations only one side moved at all.And I agree with you that making a final proposal an hour before the deadline is not giving the other time enough time to react. How is that different from the players making specific demands to get 10 years worth of financials an hour before the deadline? I think it's fair to say that the players were being a little disingenuous at that point. IIRC, they demanded that with a threat to decertify instead of asking for an extension to consider the last offer.Then again, I wasn't in the room. I can't claim to understand the truth of the details, because both sides are telling a different story. My only point in asking that, IMO both sides had already scripted how they were going to get to the point we are at right now, but to me it was the players that dictated the course by not coming to the table with anything.EDIT: I just wanted to add that i appreciate your accessibility on the subject. :tup:

You do realize the players did not want more, right? The owners wanted another $1 to $1.5B off the top and then to also give the players less in the revenue split. Since they wanted a lot more in a new CBA while the players were trying to play goalie (and just hold on to what they had), don't you think the owners needed to make a case for that money? You ask for ten years hoping to get 3 years worth of data.The owners never attempted to show why they needed the extra money. That led to major trust issues and they are as strong as ever. Their 11th hour deal really wasn't a deal. It was designed to turn the public against the players. And it worked for awhile. Recent polls now have most of the fans siding with the players. From where I sit the owners are going to keep reducing their offers to the players and if the players don't accept then we will lose the season.Right now I suspect we will miss at least a few games this year. That's because the league has to give a few weeks for free agency to play out, some form of training camps and preseason games to be played before the season can begin. And right now we are facing a lockout lasting at least until July based on the stay getting granted today.

You do realized the owners offered financial information, through a third party auditor. Which could have provided, in large part, the ability for them to see 'the need' and potentially even pose some questions back to the ownership. The ownership just wasn't going to give unfettered access.

Stop bringing up that the owners wouldn't open their books.

 

[renesauz]

You do realize the players did not want more, right?

We all realize this fact, but what differance does it make? Those advocating for the players bring it up ALL the time, but it's a straw man. The players got more in EVERY SINGLE NEW CBA/EXTENSION BEOFRE THIS ONE. It was time for the owners to "get more".Why is it OK for labor to demand more with every contract and deal, but if management wants more, they're painted as greedy evil bastages. Makes no sense. The players knew they had a stellar deal before. The players knew that with a changing economy and tighter taxpayer pockets the owners wanted some back. The players have done nothing but posture throughout, convincing some fans that "they didn't opt out" and "they didn't want more"....so it MUST be the owners fault. It's a crock. The players have plenty of legit positions and arguments, but these are pathetic...thin and empty. The continued use of them convinces me ever more that the owners deserve FAR more credit than the average fan is willing to give them. A very real and fair argument by players would be to NOT have the real cap go down. A freeze on it or even a very small rise each year for the next five years would have given the owners a chance to grow their own income without taking from the real pockets of the players. THAT'S an argument I could understand, and agree with. Owners could get the money they're asking for by earning it from the public by growing the business.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

OK....and if I was an owner facing that, I'd fire every player and start from scratch. Void every contract.

And if there were a draft over the next five years or so, your team would probably have the first pick every year.

I quite obviously meant EVERY team fire EVERY player.

Oh, well you can't do that. An individual owner could do it, but multiple owners can't conspire with each other to do it. That's collusion.

 

[Mello]

You do realize the players did not want more, right?

We all realize this fact, but what differance does it make? Those advocating for the players bring it up ALL the time, but it's a straw man. The players got more in EVERY SINGLE NEW CBA/EXTENSION BEOFRE THIS ONE. It was time for the owners to "get more".Why is it OK for labor to demand more with every contract and deal, but if management wants more, they're painted as greedy evil bastages. Makes no sense. The players knew they had a stellar deal before. The players knew that with a changing economy and tighter taxpayer pockets the owners wanted some back. The players have done nothing but posture throughout, convincing some fans that "they didn't opt out" and "they didn't want more"....so it MUST be the owners fault.

It's a crock. The players have plenty of legit positions and arguments, but these are pathetic...thin and empty. The continued use of them convinces me ever more that the owners deserve FAR more credit than the average fan is willing to give them.

A very real and fair argument by players would be to NOT have the real cap go down. A freeze on it or even a very small rise each year for the next five years would have given the owners a chance to grow their own income without taking from the real pockets of the players. THAT'S an argument I could understand, and agree with. Owners could get the money they're asking for by earning it from the public by growing the business.

It makes perfect sense. If in 2006, if the owners had refused to give the players more and the players decided to go on strike or decertify over it I would be much more sympathetic toward the owners. That's not what happened though. They agreed to the deal almost unanimously. Now they want to take things back without adequately proving the need for it.

 

[renesauz]

If I am the players, I make these ultimatums for a new CBA:- No "league-wide" salary cap- Free Agency happens in 4 years. All franchise, transitional, and restricted free agency is now gone.The players promised this would happen under Upshaw if the owners blew up the CBA. They need to follow through with their promise.

OK....and if I was an owner facing that, I'd fire every player and start from scratch. Void every contract.

And if there were a draft over the next five years or so, your team would probably have the first pick every year.

I quite obviously meant EVERY team fire EVERY player.

Oh, well you can't do that. An individual owner could do it, but multiple owners can't conspire with each other to do it. That's collusion.

Even if they sign a contract with a new players union? It all comes down to the fact that the owners have to act as 32 seperate entities most of the time even though they are one league. A CBA is a contract between one business and one union....and that's OK. It's also OK for that same business to reject that labor union and seek employees elsewhere...but not for 32 seperate companies to do so at the same time, even thought they are all (or were) covered by the SAME CBA and single union? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the laws don't make sense. They are stacked AGAINST business in this regard, or at least against pro sports business in an illogical way. The CBA was between the players and the COLLECTIVE group of owners. If it was OK to sign with the (collective group of) owners , than it sure should be logically OK for the owners to collectively reject that same union.American Needle was the wrong decision, basically because it left the NFL in no-mans land. If it's the right decision, than the law needs changing.

 

[coolnerd]

You do realize the players did not want more, right?

We all realize this fact, but what differance does it make? Those advocating for the players bring it up ALL the time, but it's a straw man. The players got more in EVERY SINGLE NEW CBA/EXTENSION BEOFRE THIS ONE. It was time for the owners to "get more".Why is it OK for labor to demand more with every contract and deal, but if management wants more, they're painted as greedy evil bastages. Makes no sense. The players knew they had a stellar deal before. The players knew that with a changing economy and tighter taxpayer pockets the owners wanted some back. The players have done nothing but posture throughout, convincing some fans that "they didn't opt out" and "they didn't want more"....so it MUST be the owners fault.

It's a crock. The players have plenty of legit positions and arguments, but these are pathetic...thin and empty. The continued use of them convinces me ever more that the owners deserve FAR more credit than the average fan is willing to give them.

A very real and fair argument by players would be to NOT have the real cap go down. A freeze on it or even a very small rise each year for the next five years would have given the owners a chance to grow their own income without taking from the real pockets of the players. THAT'S an argument I could understand, and agree with. Owners could get the money they're asking for by earning it from the public by growing the business.

It makes perfect sense. If in 2006, if the owners had refused to give the players more and the players decided to go on strike or decertify over it I would be much more sympathetic toward the owners. That's not what happened though. They agreed to the deal almost unanimously. Now they want to take things back without adequately proving the need for it.

I beleive (no facts to prove) that the plan to get a better deal via lockout was in place before the ink was dry. Even with a changed overall economy (which has in relative terms had little negative influence on the NFL), 30 of 32 (sans buffalo and Cincinati??) did not have enough vision to see the problems with the structure of CBA. I mean most of these guys are if nothing else financially saavy (or hire people who are) and 30 of them signed a deal that in two years was so awful that EVERY single one of them though the league had to get from under it. BTW, I have a players hiring an outsider meant they wanted to go to court rant also.

 

[roarlions]

A very real and fair argument by players would be to NOT have the real cap go down. A freeze on it or even a very small rise each year for the next five years would have given the owners a chance to grow their own income without taking from the real pockets of the players. THAT'S an argument I could understand, and agree with. Owners could get the money they're asking for by earning it from the public by growing the business.

You realize that this is basically how the last offer from the owners was presented and that the NFLPA basically agreed to it. The problem came down to how revenues would be shared if the revenues grew faster than 4% per year (or something in that range). The fixed cap amounts were based on about 2.5% revenue growth for the next couple of years and the players weren't asking for any more revenue sharing even if revenues grew by up to 4%. I'd say that pretty much meets your criteria for a small rise each year.

 

[David Dodds]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

 

[David Dodds]

If the Appeals Court does not rule on the stay yet they granted the temporary stay with no merit, then I stand by my assertion that this is all rigged.

The Appeals Court does not want to rule on the stay, because the four things they need to cite are simply not true. But on appeal, they can throw the whole case out citing jurisdiction or some other nonsense.

I hope this CBS article is wrong and the Appeals Court makes a ruling on Thursday, because this non-ruling is a huge cop out to what they have been asked to do.

 

[David Dodds]

http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/15019353

Hoping a bunch of extra lawsuits emerge from the GMs calling undrafted rookies (which they are forbidden to do during this lockout)

 

[Jason Wood]

http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/15019353Hoping a bunch of extra lawsuits emerge from the GMs calling undrafted rookies (which they are forbidden to do during this lockout)

I'm confused. Why would you want additional legal proceedings involved? As someone that I know wants a quick end to this dispute, the last thing you should want is MORE legal wrangling.

 

[David Dodds]

http://www.cbssports.../story/15019353

Hoping a bunch of extra lawsuits emerge from the GMs calling undrafted rookies (which they are forbidden to do during this lockout)

I'm confused. Why would you want additional legal proceedings involved? As someone that I know wants a quick end to this dispute, the last thing you should want is MORE legal wrangling.

Should some GMs be allowed to break the rules for gain for their teams during the lockout? I thought that was one of the reasons made for the salary cap (keeping the playing field fair among teams). So the way this is going now, the cheaters are granted a huge advantage. So yes I want some whistleblowers to come forward and penalize the teams that are breaking the rules.

 

[Rockchild]

http://www.cbssports.../story/15019353

Hoping a bunch of extra lawsuits emerge from the GMs calling undrafted rookies (which they are forbidden to do during this lockout)

I'm confused. Why would you want additional legal proceedings involved? As someone that I know wants a quick end to this dispute, the last thing you should want is MORE legal wrangling.

Should some GMs be allowed to break the rules for gain for their teams during the lockout? I thought that was one of the reasons made for the salary cap (keeping the playing field fair among teams). So the way this is going now, the cheaters are granted a huge advantage. So yes I want some whistleblowers to come forward and penalize the teams that are breaking the rules.

They either want a lockout or they don't. It can't help their case, if true, to continue the lockout or the overall case of the validity of the lockout. They speak of a sham decertification but this would show, again if true, a sham lockout.

 

[David Dodds]

http://www.cbssports.../story/15019353

Hoping a bunch of extra lawsuits emerge from the GMs calling undrafted rookies (which they are forbidden to do during this lockout)

I'm confused. Why would you want additional legal proceedings involved? As someone that I know wants a quick end to this dispute, the last thing you should want is MORE legal wrangling.

Should some GMs be allowed to break the rules for gain for their teams during the lockout? I thought that was one of the reasons made for the salary cap (keeping the playing field fair among teams). So the way this is going now, the cheaters are granted a huge advantage. So yes I want some whistleblowers to come forward and penalize the teams that are breaking the rules.

They either want a lockout or they don't. It can't help their case, if true, to continue the lockout or the overall case of the validity of the lockout. They speak of a sham decertification but this would show, again if true, a sham lockout.

If we had a Commish that actually represented the players and owners this would be looked into. Not hard looking at phone records to see which teams violated the lockout's rules of contacting players and agents to gain an unfair advantage.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If the Appeals Court does not rule on the stay yet they granted the temporary stay with no merit, then I stand by my assertion that this is all rigged.

The Appeals Court does not want to rule on the stay, because the four things they need to cite are simply not true. But on appeal, they can throw the whole case out citing jurisdiction or some other nonsense.

I hope this CBS article is wrong and the Appeals Court makes a ruling on Thursday, because this non-ruling is a huge cop out to what they have been asked to do.

Seriously. rigged You think, somehow, the NFL has the clout to rig 3 (well, 9, since they didn't know which 3 they'd get) federal court of appeals judges? Or, perhaps, maybe...and I want you to consider this...if the owner's prevail, that there is actual legal merit to the issue on which the federal court rules in their favor?

I still think the federal court of appeals upholds the lower court ruling. But you haven't once heard me yell "rigged" despite my obvious predisposition to favor the ownership position here. (To be fair, I have said and do believe that a judge's political leanings do play a role in the way a judge rules. I believe it happened in the district court and it will come into play in how the law is interpreted at the federal court of appeals level, but I've never suggested 'rigging')

 

[Ksquared]

David as this discussion has continued, I have really had a hard time following you. I have always felt you had an astute business mind, but some of what you are saying makes sense only if your coming from the "screw the owners, they are just a bunch of greedy rich SOBs" side. The problem from my perspective is both sides are "a bunch of greedy rich SOB's". There seems to be little balance in many of your statements and I do understand that this whole mess is going to hurt your $$ bottom line. But in response to you and some of the posts a couple above you. The owners agreed in 2006 because they were putting in an opt out in 2008 if the updated CBA did not work as was presented to them. Which if you look back at newspaper articles from within a week of the signing and for much of the next year, different owners stated they felt the new CBA was misrepresented to them by what their side (Tags specifically, which I happen to think is the one people should be looking at in a more negative light in this whole mess) informed them was in it. The owners were under extreme pressure to sign ASAP or the NFL calendar was going to be messed up. Ralph Wilson did not vote for it because he was not given time to read the new agreement. What I remember reading was many owners took what their leaders stated was in the CBA and did not read the whole thing (I may be misremebering, but I believe the owners were pressured to sign within 48 hours of the agreement). The owners signed the CBA last time because of the pressure to not "stop the game", but had the available opt out in 2 years. So we just put off the inevitable.

I believe there have been 5 adjustments to the CBA since it was originally signed and every time the players got more. With the economy the way it is, the dramatic increase in labor costs (not related to salary) in the last 10 years, and no more or very little public money being used to "grow" the game in the future - I am not sure why it is hard to realize the owners should be getting something back. The question is how much? I don't have a good answer because I don't know enough of the details, but everything I have read shows dramatic changes in what the owners were asking for, while the players are still where they were in August of last year (the 50% offer was no real change in position $$ wise per the WSJ article).

Bottom line, I want the NFL similar to the structure we have now. And I am willing to suffer a little now (it is the off season any way, even losing a game or two) to set up a stronger NFL structure that can last as long as the previous CBA. And lastly, your lashing out at Goodell (who probably has the toughest job in any sport) is rather naive. He is not going to gain much out of whatever agreement that comes out of this, but he is losing a lot everyday in his public image, salary, etc. He has 32 divergent minds to try to get to agree on anything, which with the egos we know about seems like as tough a job as their is. I think in the end, Goodell will be the one that will have to fall on the sword when all this ends to save the "owner's reputations".

And as Woods stated, if you really want the NFL to get going again, anymore involvement by lawyers will only make that possibility less likely.

 

[Ksquared]

If the Appeals Court does not rule on the stay yet they granted the temporary stay with no merit, then I stand by my assertion that this is all rigged.

The Appeals Court does not want to rule on the stay, because the four things they need to cite are simply not true. But on appeal, they can throw the whole case out citing jurisdiction or some other nonsense.

I hope this CBS article is wrong and the Appeals Court makes a ruling on Thursday, because this non-ruling is a huge cop out to what they have been asked to do.

Seriously. rigged You think, somehow, the NFL has the clout to rig 3 (well, 9, since they didn't know which 3 they'd get) federal court of appeals judges? Or, perhaps, maybe...and I want you to consider this...if the owner's prevail, that there is actual legal merit to the issue on which the federal court rules in their favor?

I still think the federal court of appeals upholds the lower court ruling. But you haven't once heard me yell "rigged" despite my obvious predisposition to favor the ownership position here. (To be fair, I have said and do believe that a judge's political leanings do play a role in the way a judge rules. I believe it happened in the district court and it will come into play in how the law is interpreted at the federal court of appeals level, but I've never suggested 'rigging')

My rant above did not even get into the "rigging" of our judicial system by these "greedy rich owners". Are the black helicopters flying around? The issue that I believe the District Court sidestepped is whether they even have jurisdiction in this part of the labor process or only the NLRB does. That is really the question that could go to the SC. My understanding is there has been little clarification in law about where the line is for jurisdiction in labor negotiations vs anti-trust violations.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

by not ruling, they are making a ruling to not lift the temporary stay.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

You do realize the players did not want more, right? The owners wanted another $1 to $1.5B off the top and then to also give the players less in the revenue split. Since they wanted a lot more in a new CBA while the players were trying to play goalie (and just hold on to what they had), don't you think the owners needed to make a case for that money? You ask for ten years hoping to get 3 years worth of data.The owners never attempted to show why they needed the extra money. That led to major trust issues and they are as strong as ever. Their 11th hour deal really wasn't a deal. It was designed to turn the public against the players. And it worked for awhile. Recent polls now have most of the fans siding with the players. From where I sit the owners are going to keep reducing their offers to the players and if the players don't accept then we will lose the season.

Isn't this a little disingenuous? This POV completely ignores how we got to this point, which was the owners conceding to sign the last CBA that they were unhappy with to avoid a work stoppage. The opt-out clause was what the players had to concede at that point to get the owners to sign.So you have a CBA that the owners have not been happy with since it was signed, but that was signed in good faith to avoid a work stoppage. When they came to the negotiating table this time, they started looking for what they had given up in signing the last CBA. They knew it was a pipe dream, but had to start somewhere.And they negotiated plenty. The players, really not at all.Also, as has been pointed out the owners did offer to disclose financials through a third party.At the end of the day I think all we (all of us fans) want is for football to continue and for the structure of the league to remain similar to what it was in 2010. We want a healthy league. IMO the owners have a vested interest in keeping the league healthy, but the players do not. The players have a vested interest in Getting Paid while they have the chance. It's for this reason more than any other that I generally favor the owners in this situation, but I also try to keep in mind the conditions that got us here.

 

[Cassius]

If the Appeals Court does not rule on the stay yet they granted the temporary stay with no merit, then I stand by my assertion that this is all rigged.

 

[David Dodds]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

by not ruling, they are making a ruling to not lift the temporary stay.

Yes they are agreeing to keep the stay without having to show their work on these 4 points. That's why I think it's lame beyond words. Public interest clearly does not favor the stay. Players are harmed. Number two might be a tossup, but the owners are acting like they really want a season and will be forced to enact their rules at some point if there is one. And I don't believe the owners can win on merits (bullet 1).This is going to get tossed to the NLRB.

and this is what I mean by rigged. The NFL had dialogue with at least some of these appeals judges way before now so they knew this court would rule to push it to the NLRB. It won't be overturned by the merits. It will be thrown out on some loophole that the NFL knew would happen.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

by not ruling, they are making a ruling to not lift the temporary stay.

Yes they are agreeing to keep the stay without having to show their work on these 4 points. That's why I think it's lame beyond words. Public interest clearly does not favor the stay. Players are harmed. Number two might be a tossup, but the owners are acting like they really want a season and will be forced to enact their rules at some point if there is one. And I don't believe the owners can win on merits (bullet 1).This is going to get tossed to the NLRB.

and this is what I mean by rigged. The NFL had dialogue with at least some of these appeals judges way before now so they knew this court would rule to push it to the NLRB. It won't be overturned by the merits. It will be thrown out on some loophole that the NFL knew would happen.

Well then no football this year, because the NLRB wont hear it for along time, 2012 correct?

 

[David Dodds]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

by not ruling, they are making a ruling to not lift the temporary stay.

Yes they are agreeing to keep the stay without having to show their work on these 4 points. That's why I think it's lame beyond words. Public interest clearly does not favor the stay. Players are harmed. Number two might be a tossup, but the owners are acting like they really want a season and will be forced to enact their rules at some point if there is one. And I don't believe the owners can win on merits (bullet 1).This is going to get tossed to the NLRB.

and this is what I mean by rigged. The NFL had dialogue with at least some of these appeals judges way before now so they knew this court would rule to push it to the NLRB. It won't be overturned by the merits. It will be thrown out on some loophole that the NFL knew would happen.

Well then no football this year, because the NLRB wont hear it for along time, 2012 correct?

I am sure the owners will offer a last ditch proposal that is significantly worse than what they already offered to the players. They promised to keep lowering their offers and I fully expect them to hold to that promise.But yes I think the chance of a lost season is definitely in play here. The NFL schedule that was released was drawn up so that they could replace the first three weeks later in the year. That's always been the owners plan. Bleed the players out.

 

[Ksquared]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

by not ruling, they are making a ruling to not lift the temporary stay.

Yes they are agreeing to keep the stay without having to show their work on these 4 points. That's why I think it's lame beyond words. Public interest clearly does not favor the stay. Players are harmed. Number two might be a tossup, but the owners are acting like they really want a season and will be forced to enact their rules at some point if there is one. And I don't believe the owners can win on merits (bullet 1).This is going to get tossed to the NLRB.

and this is what I mean by rigged. The NFL had dialogue with at least some of these appeals justices way before now so they knew this court would rule to push it to the NLRB. It won't be overturned by the merits. It will be thrown out on some loophole that the NFL knew would happen.

Wow David, you mean lawyers getting interpretations on what area of the government (Judicial - District Courts - or Legislative - NLRB) has the right/responsibility to jurisdiction in this case is "rigging" the decision. Just wow, I think that is called interpreting the law. It sounds to me like you have taken the original ruling (which I believe side stepped the jurisdiction question) and decided that the District Court Judge's decision is the obvious and correct interpretation of our labor laws. Anyone else that disagrees is creating some type of a conspiracy to keep the "players down". I am not even getting into the accusation that the Appeals Court Justices are so corrupt that they would be communicating with the NFL owners before hearing this case, telling them how they would rule, and then not recusing themselves. That is just black helicopter stuff. Basically you are saying if the NFLPA is not given every legal victory they are asking for, it is some kind of conspiracy.

I still find it almost humorous that the "pro-player/union" side of this argument do not want to rely on not going to the NLRB which has been viewed as anti-business/pro-union historically. Stop and think about the merits of the case for a second then. If ownership wants this in front of the NLRB and they are considered to be prolabor in most of their decision, maybe the owners have a legitimate legal position.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

[QUOTE='Ksquared]The issue that I believe the District Court sidestepped is whether they even have jurisdiction in this part of the labor process or only the NLRB does. That is really the question that could go to the SC. My understanding is there has been little clarification in law about where the line is for jurisdiction in labor negotiations vs anti-trust violations.
[/QUOTE]If by sidestepped, you mean directly addressed, then sure.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Interesting twist here is that the Appeals Court may not rule at all on the stay:

http://www.cbssports...475988/29071829

So much for backing up their legal position. Remember the Appeals Court needs to grant the stay based on these issues:

(1) A strong showing of likely success on the merits

(2) Irreparable harm without a stay

(3) Players are not substantially harmed by a stay

(4) Public interest favors the stay

by not ruling, they are making a ruling to not lift the temporary stay.

Yes they are agreeing to keep the stay without having to show their work on these 4 points. That's why I think it's lame beyond words. Public interest clearly does not favor the stay. Players are harmed. Number two might be a tossup, but the owners are acting like they really want a season and will be forced to enact their rules at some point if there is one. And I don't believe the owners can win on merits (bullet 1).This is going to get tossed to the NLRB.

and this is what I mean by rigged. The NFL had dialogue with at least some of these appeals judges way before now so they knew this court would rule to push it to the NLRB. It won't be overturned by the merits. It will be thrown out on some loophole that the NFL knew would happen.

Well then no football this year, because the NLRB wont hear it for along time, 2012 correct?

I am sure the owners will offer a last ditch proposal that is significantly worse than what they already offered to the players. They promised to keep lowering their offers and I fully expect them to hold to that promise.But yes I think the chance of a lost season is definitely in play here. The NFL schedule that was released was drawn up so that they could replace the first three weeks later in the year. That's always been the owners plan. Bleed the players out.

You are full-on delusional, Rashard.

 

[David Dodds]

I am pretty sure the owners will lose at the NLRB too, but I doubt the players will be able to stand two years of not getting paid. This was the owner's plan all along. Game the TV money and bleed the players out. Take our 20% pay cut terms or watch us continually lower the offer to you.

The owners position is you can sue us, but it must be heard by the NLRB which won't hear the case until 2012. This is all I mean by using the word "rigged". The NFL doesn't want the NLRB to rule on this either. But they prefer them ruling on it because it's so far in the future.

 

[David Dodds]

[QUOTE='Ksquared]The issue that I believe the District Court sidestepped is whether they even have jurisdiction in this part of the labor process or only the NLRB does. That is really the question that could go to the SC. My understanding is there has been little clarification in law about where the line is for jurisdiction in labor negotiations vs anti-trust violations.

If by sidestepped, you mean directly addressed, then sure.[/QUOTE]

 

[Idiot Boxer]

[QUOTE='Ksquared]The issue that I believe the District Court sidestepped is whether they even have jurisdiction in this part of the labor process or only the NLRB does. That is really the question that could go to the SC. My understanding is there has been little clarification in law about where the line is for jurisdiction in labor negotiations vs anti-trust violations.

If by sidestepped, you mean directly addressed, then sure.[/QUOTE]I agree that she addressed it directly. Doesn't mean that her interpretation isn't reviewable/overturnable on appeal, especially with her 'implying' certain things because the statute was silent.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I am pretty sure the owners will lose at the NLRB too, but I doubt the players will be able to stand two years of not getting paid. This was the owner's plan all along. Game the TV money and bleed the players out. Take our 20% pay cut terms or watch us continually lower the offer to you.The owners position is you can sue us, but it must be heard by the NLRB which won't hear the case until 2012. This is all I mean by using the word "rigged". The NFL doesn't want the NLRB to rule on this either. But they prefer them ruling on it because it's so far in the future.

I may agree with you that that is their strategy. Much the same as the players strategy was to decertify even though they still want a union and a CBA.Your 'rigged' statement implies the owners are in cahoots with the federal court of appeals...to which I reply: you are looney.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The NLRB will likely dismiss the case eventually. They're the ones who don't have jurisdiction since there's no union involved. But it will take them quite a while to do so.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

[QUOTE='Ksquared]The issue that I believe the District Court sidestepped is whether they even have jurisdiction in this part of the labor process or only the NLRB does. That is really the question that could go to the SC. My understanding is there has been little clarification in law about where the line is for jurisdiction in labor negotiations vs anti-trust violations.

If by sidestepped, you mean directly addressed, then sure.

I agree that she addressed it directly. Doesn't mean that her interpretation isn't reviewable/overturnable on appeal, especially with her 'implying' certain things because the statute was silent.[/QUOTE]Of course it's reviewable.And IMO she has no authority to read stuff into the statute that isn't there. If it's silent on whether something is required, she can't invent the requirement on her own.And on the issue of what constitutes a sham, she applied the NLRB's previous opinions, which also contained no requirement of intent to remain decertified indefinitely. (And even if they did, it would be easy to produced uncontradicted declarations from players evidencing such an intent.)

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Agreed. As I've said, I still think the players win on appeal (though not a slam dunk proposition), but Dodd's 'rigged' assertion has really thrown me. I still believe that if the stay is granted, this is the absolute best time for them to finalize a new CBA as leverage is as close to 'even' as it might ever get. Of course, it likely won't happen because neither side wants to negotiate from 'approximately equal' grounds.

 

[jbobbett]

At the end of the day I think all we (all of us fans) want is for football to continue and for the structure of the league to remain similar to what it was in 2010. We want a healthy league. IMO the owners have a vested interest in keeping the league healthy, but the players do not. The players have a vested interest in Getting Paid while they have the chance. It's for this reason more than any other that I generally favor the owners in this situation, but I also try to keep in mind the conditions that got us here.

This statement really sums it up for me as well. If there were a group of rogue rich owners trying to change the structure of the league to their advantage and the players were fighting to keep competitive balance for their own long term interest then I would be on the players side.

 

[renesauz]

A very real and fair argument by players would be to NOT have the real cap go down. A freeze on it or even a very small rise each year for the next five years would have given the owners a chance to grow their own income without taking from the real pockets of the players. THAT'S an argument I could understand, and agree with. Owners could get the money they're asking for by earning it from the public by growing the business.

You realize that this is basically how the last offer from the owners was presented and that the NFLPA basically agreed to it. The problem came down to how revenues would be shared if the revenues grew faster than 4% per year (or something in that range). The fixed cap amounts were based on about 2.5% revenue growth for the next couple of years and the players weren't asking for any more revenue sharing even if revenues grew by up to 4%. I'd say that pretty much meets your criteria for a small rise each year.

I THOUGHT that was true, but other here are saying it wasn't.My point was to ensure pay doesn't go down, and let the owners have any excess they find a way to generate. Fighting to maintain a specific % in the current economic reality is just as greedy as the unreasonable Billion dollar demand the owners made. (Which they at least came off of)

 

[David Dodds]

At the end of the day I think all we (all of us fans) want is for football to continue and for the structure of the league to remain similar to what it was in 2010. We want a healthy league. IMO the owners have a vested interest in keeping the league healthy, but the players do not. The players have a vested interest in Getting Paid while they have the chance. It's for this reason more than any other that I generally favor the owners in this situation, but I also try to keep in mind the conditions that got us here.

This statement really sums it up for me as well. If there were a group of rogue rich owners trying to change the structure of the league to their advantage and the players were fighting to keep competitive balance for their own long term interest then I would be on the players side.

The 2010 rules had no salary cap. That's what you would like to see going forward?

 

[renesauz]

David as this discussion has continued, I have really had a hard time following you. I have always felt you had an astute business mind, but some of what you are saying makes sense only if your coming from the "screw the owners, they are just a bunch of greedy rich SOBs" side. The problem from my perspective is both sides are "a bunch of greedy rich SOB's". There seems to be little balance in many of your statements and I do understand that this whole mess is going to hurt your $$ bottom line. But in response to you and some of the posts a couple above you. The owners agreed in 2006 because they were putting in an opt out in 2008 if the updated CBA did not work as was presented to them. Which if you look back at newspaper articles from within a week of the signing and for much of the next year, different owners stated they felt the new CBA was misrepresented to them by what their side (Tags specifically, which I happen to think is the one people should be looking at in a more negative light in this whole mess) informed them was in it. The owners were under extreme pressure to sign ASAP or the NFL calendar was going to be messed up. Ralph Wilson did not vote for it because he was not given time to read the new agreement. What I remember reading was many owners took what their leaders stated was in the CBA and did not read the whole thing (I may be misremebering, but I believe the owners were pressured to sign within 48 hours of the agreement). The owners signed the CBA last time because of the pressure to not "stop the game", but had the available opt out in 2 years. So we just put off the inevitable. I believe there have been 5 adjustments to the CBA since it was originally signed and every time the players got more. With the economy the way it is, the dramatic increase in labor costs (not related to salary) in the last 10 years, and no more or very little public money being used to "grow" the game in the future - I am not sure why it is hard to realize the owners should be getting something back. The question is how much? I don't have a good answer because I don't know enough of the details, but everything I have read shows dramatic changes in what the owners were asking for, while the players are still where they were in August of last year (the 50% offer was no real change in position $$ wise per the WSJ article). Bottom line, I want the NFL similar to the structure we have now. And I am willing to suffer a little now (it is the off season any way, even losing a game or two) to set up a stronger NFL structure that can last as long as the previous CBA. And lastly, your lashing out at Goodell (who probably has the toughest job in any sport) is rather naive. He is not going to gain much out of whatever agreement that comes out of this, but he is losing a lot everyday in his public image, salary, etc. He has 32 divergent minds to try to get to agree on anything, which with the egos we know about seems like as tough a job as their is. I think in the end, Goodell will be the one that will have to fall on the sword when all this ends to save the "owner's reputations".And as Woods stated, if you really want the NFL to get going again, anymore involvement by lawyers will only make that possibility less likely.

Well stated.

 

[Ksquared]

I am pretty sure the owners will lose at the NLRB too, but I doubt the players will be able to stand two years of not getting paid. This was the owner's plan all along. Game the TV money and bleed the players out. Take our 20% pay cut terms or watch us continually lower the offer to you.The owners position is you can sue us, but it must be heard by the NLRB which won't hear the case until 2012. This is all I mean by using the word "rigged". The NFL doesn't want the NLRB to rule on this either. But they prefer them ruling on it because it's so far in the future.

Ok this makes more sense. And David I am not so sure the owners would drop their offers that much, they need the season to start on time as well. I actually think if the ruling was reversed and pending appeal above the Appeals Court the NLRB has jurisdiction, we would have NFL games sooner than any other path. And my point of sidestepping the jurisdiction question is the opinion as I read in a recent review (and maybe this is way off) that this was just a justification for the judiciary to enter into the labor/ownership negotiations process. I am not a lawyer at all and did not review the cases the author had brought up, but he questioned several basic parts of the opinion as legislative vs judicial branch law. And felt there was a good chance of over reach in the opinion. I tried to find the article and link it, but I don't even remember what is was in - I just know it was an opinion piece.I do need to add that the review indicated the NLRB would probably dismiss the "sham" claim by the owners even though most everyone agrees it was/is a just negotiation tactic due to past rulings. The question was whether the court had a right to intervene in the NLRB's realm of responsibility and what precedent this could create in the future.