Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[fatness]

Lifting the lockout doesn't speed negotiations...it places the players in a position to dictate.

Lifting the lockout allows the players and teams to resume normal football activities while the NFL determines the rules for this year.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Lifting the lockout doesn't speed negotiations...it places the players in a position to dictate.

Lifting the lockout allows the players and teams to resume normal football activities while the NFL determines the rules for this year.

You do know that the rules the NFL puts in place have to survive anti-trust scrutinty because of the lack af a CBA. It isn't like the NFL can determine any set of rules. It is this post-CBA anti-trust scrutiny set of rules that some fans of the NFL fear. No draft, no cap, no floor (no minimum salaries). Many players have indicated they don't want that either, yet we are careening in that direction. Lifting the lockout won't steer is away from that NFL, it will be that many steps closer to it.

 

[renesauz]

This was buried in one of my email accounts I don't check very often. It was apparently written after the lockout lift order, and before the stay:

Litigation endangers NFL successBy ROGER GOODELLLate Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans. For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer. Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation. Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples: • No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy." • No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less. • No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums. • No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could. • No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation. • No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites. • No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not. Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil. Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets? Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine. Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests? These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I agree 100%. Lawyers and a few superstars pushing the lawsuits are going to ruin OUR league. (We pay for it in the end.) The Brady anti-trust suit does not represent the best interests of most of the players.

 

[cobalt_27]

I agree 100%. Lawyers and a few superstars pushing the lawsuits are going to ruin OUR league. (We pay for it in the end.) The Brady anti-trust suit does not represent the best interests of most of the players.

I think even the pro-labor people here would say they don't want the outcome the Brady litigation would produce.

 

[Rockchild]

I agree 100%. Lawyers and a few superstars pushing the lawsuits are going to ruin OUR league. (We pay for it in the end.) The Brady anti-trust suit does not represent the best interests of most of the players.

I think even the pro-labor people here would say they don't want the outcome the Brady litigation would produce.

It may or may not have the outcome described by Mr.Goodell but why is that the players fault? They were happy with the CBA and if the owners want to avoid this situation happening then maybe they should make it worth the players while. They've not offered any financial benefit to the players and in fact have asked the players to take less to start. He admits himself in this missive that it " has worked enormously well for the NFL, NFL players and NFL fans." Why screw around with it then?

 

[cobalt_27]

I agree 100%. Lawyers and a few superstars pushing the lawsuits are going to ruin OUR league. (We pay for it in the end.) The Brady anti-trust suit does not represent the best interests of most of the players.

I think even the pro-labor people here would say they don't want the outcome the Brady litigation would produce.

It may or may not have the outcome described by Mr.Goodell but why is that the players fault? They were happy with the CBA and if the owners want to avoid this situation happening then maybe they should make it worth the players while. They've not offered any financial benefit to the players and in fact have asked the players to take less to start. He admits himself in this missive that it " has worked enormously well for the NFL, NFL players and NFL fans." Why screw around with it then?

It depends on what you think Goodell meant "it" was when he said it. I don't think he means that the previous CBA was working out enormously well. According to the owners, it was not going to work moving forward.

 

[zadok]

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.

Uh dude? You can't lockout a non-union workforce. The league decided on the lockout at the expiration of the CBA over 2 years ago. They only stalled the implentation of the lockout during the post-March mediation sessions in hopes of a new CBA. But it was a fait accompli, the decertification had nothing to with it whatsoever.

 

[cobalt_27]

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.

Uh dude? You can't lockout a non-union workforce. The league decided on the lockout at the expiration of the CBA over 2 years ago. They only stalled the implentation of the lockout during the post-March mediation sessions in hopes of a new CBA. But it was a fait accompli, the decertification had nothing to with it whatsoever.

Uhh dude. The players were not interested in negotiating. The last CBA got to their head, they felt entitled to the status quo, and they never were serious about negotiating because they had this atom bomb of decertification and litigation they could drop any time they wanted and try to get the owners to buckle while dealing with the fallout. They were never serious about negotiating. The decertification had everything to do with it because the players felt entitled to keep the terms of the last deal that rocked for them. Decertification was their negotiation strategy...had nothing to do with displeasure over their union. In other words, it's a sham and as been all along.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Renesauz, if the lockout was a response to decertification how do you explain the NFL negotiating a TV deal in 2008 specifically to allow cash to continue flowing in the event of a lockout?

And how do you explain the NFL hiring Bob Batterman (who oversaw the NHL lockout) in March 2008 if the lockout was a response to decertfication?

More generally, do you agree that a rational person/party might look at the NFL's activities in 2008 -- opting out of the CBA, immediately hiring Bob Batterman, then agreeing to a TV deal that results in less revenue in exchange for continued payments in the event of a lockout -- and decide that they better start planning on how to fight a lockout?

And, going all the way back to square one - do you agree that 2011 comes after 2008?

 

[renesauz]

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.

Uh dude? You can't lockout a non-union workforce. The league decided on the lockout at the expiration of the CBA over 2 years ago. They only stalled the implentation of the lockout during the post-March mediation sessions in hopes of a new CBA. But it was a fait accompli, the decertification had nothing to with it whatsoever.

Uhh dude. The players were not interested in negotiating. The last CBA got to their head, they felt entitled to the status quo, and they never were serious about negotiating because they had this atom bomb of decertification and litigation they could drop any time they wanted and try to get the owners to buckle while dealing with the fallout. They were never serious about negotiating. The decertification had everything to do with it because the players felt entitled to keep the terms of the last deal that rocked for them. Decertification was their negotiation strategy...had nothing to do with displeasure over their union. In other words, it's a sham and as been all along.

 

[renesauz]

Renesauz, if the lockout was a response to decertification how do you explain the NFL negotiating a TV deal in 2008 specifically to allow cash to continue flowing in the event of a lockout?

And how do you explain the NFL hiring Bob Batterman (who oversaw the NHL lockout) in March 2008 if the lockout was a response to decertfication?

More generally, do you agree that a rational person/party might look at the NFL's activities in 2008 -- opting out of the CBA, immediately hiring Bob Batterman, then agreeing to a TV deal that results in less revenue in exchange for continued payments in the event of a lockout -- and decide that they better start planning on how to fight a lockout?

And, going all the way back to square one - do you agree that 2011 comes after 2008?

Easy. The way the laws are set up, the only thing the owners had with which to try to combat a decertification was a lockout and a legal argument of "sham". The owners had the lockout RESPONSE planned anticipating the decertification threat. The hope was that the lockout threat would counter the decertification threat and get the players to negotiate. Didn't work.Now...truth be told, I blame the poorly designed laws every bit as much as the union which has tried to take advantage of those laws. Labor/trust laws simply don't fit pro sports. Forcing them to fit hurts all of us.

Look...if you 100% believe that the players have been negotiating in good faith, than there's little point in arguing. Impasses happen in negotiations and it's unfair to place extreme blame on any one side when that happen. From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands. The owners wanted the Billion, the players wanted full financial records. The owners came WAAAAAY off their demands...the players never moved an inch. Not an inch, even when offered audited records. There is ZERO evidance that the players "negotiated" at all. The owners offered to extend the CBA long enough to get a deal, but the players were NEVER interested in a deal...their plan was always litigation.

The threat of lockout failed miserablysimply because the players union didn't care. As it turns out, decertification wasn't a threat at all...it was the plan. DeMaurice Smith never intended to settle at a negotiating table because he knew he would win every key legal battle in court, and force a "better deal". The ONLY counter to such a plan is a work stoppage, and I applaud the NFL owners for having the foresight to be prepared for it.

 

[cobalt_27]

Renesauz, if the lockout was a response to decertification how do you explain the NFL negotiating a TV deal in 2008 specifically to allow cash to continue flowing in the event of a lockout?And how do you explain the NFL hiring Bob Batterman (who oversaw the NHL lockout) in March 2008 if the lockout was a response to decertfication?More generally, do you agree that a rational person/party might look at the NFL's activities in 2008 -- opting out of the CBA, immediately hiring Bob Batterman, then agreeing to a TV deal that results in less revenue in exchange for continued payments in the event of a lockout -- and decide that they better start planning on how to fight a lockout?And, going all the way back to square one - do you agree that 2011 comes after 2008?

Because it was clear the players felt entitled to the terms of the previous deal, were not going to back off from it, and weren't going to negotiate any sort of balanced deal. It was preparation for the worst-case scenario, based on the assumption the players were not going to budge. And, they didn't. When the owners made concessions, the players did what? Decertified, thank you. And, then we had the lockout.2008 comes before 2011. What pro-labor folks don't want to hear or care about is the fact that the owners decided...hell, in 2006 when they signed the damn extension...that the current CBA and how heavily the players were getting tethered to the revenues, while the cost of stadiums/improvements/etc were going up, in addition to the recessionary pressures...that that old CBA model wasn't working and they needed a new one. Projected business is what owners have to be concerned about, some of which is based on prior years' data...others are just their own common sense and training as people who have to think about this stuff every day...they know they got screwed on the last deal, and they had to change the system. The players think they should get anything they want by pointing the gun to the owners' head. They don't want to decertify, but they did. They don't want the outcome of the anti-trust litigation, but they started that process. They are completely disingenuous on the surface about everything they are doing all because they feel entitled to the most absurdly lucrative player deal since the pre-draft NHLers. And, I think the history of how the players in the NHL handled themselves mirrors much of what we see today in the NFL. And, the hockey players were the ones who got royally screwed by their arrogance and entitlement.

 

[fatness]

Lifting the lockout doesn't speed negotiations...it places the players in a position to dictate.

Lifting the lockout allows the players and teams to resume normal football activities while the NFL determines the rules for this year.

You do know that the rules the NFL puts in place have to survive anti-trust scrutinty because of the lack af a CBA.

Yes, just like other businesses, who do not have their business practices "dictated" by employees. Anti-trust laws are just that, laws. Tell me what that allows employees to "dictate".renesauz is just exaggerating to the point of wrongness again. Anything that might tilt the balance of negotiations to the players is called "the players dictating things" and is usually accompanied by a plea for new laws to make sure the owners get what they want.

And there it is, again:

Now...truth be told, I blame the poorly designed laws every bit as much as the union which has tried to take advantage of those laws. Labor/trust laws simply don't fit pro sports. Forcing them to fit hurts all of us.

"Pwease Congwess, wet us win. Pwetty pwease."

 

[fatness]

Renesauz, if the lockout was a response to decertification how do you explain the NFL negotiating a TV deal in 2008 specifically to allow cash to continue flowing in the event of a lockout?And how do you explain the NFL hiring Bob Batterman (who oversaw the NHL lockout) in March 2008 if the lockout was a response to decertfication?

The owners have been planning this lockout for years now.

 

[cobalt_27]

Renesauz, if the lockout was a response to decertification how do you explain the NFL negotiating a TV deal in 2008 specifically to allow cash to continue flowing in the event of a lockout?And how do you explain the NFL hiring Bob Batterman (who oversaw the NHL lockout) in March 2008 if the lockout was a response to decertfication?

The owners have been planning this lockout for years now.

They've been planning for the likelihood of a lockout, given that the players indicated early on that they were in no mood to work out a more balanced deal. At least under the terms of a lockout, a deal still emerges out of bargaining and negotiating. But, the players decided it would behoove them to temporarily relinquish their union, despite being very happy with their union representation, and file litigation that they know the outcome would be devastating to 90% of them if they won, and all of this done to sidestep the negotiating process.One way or another, the players are going lose this battle and lose it badly. Even if they win every round in court, which is very much up in the air at this point, the financial setup is going to be sustained only for the most coveted 5% of the players, while the rest--particularly those toward the bottom--are going to suffer. They're screwed by this and should be on the side of the owners. They should have been negotiating all along, but instead walked away.

 

[fatness]

They're screwed by this and should be on the side of the owners.

1 commissioner, 32 owners, and a slew of NFL lawyers (some of whom make more money the longer the conflict drags out) agree with you.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands.

The players didn't actually make any demands. They were more than happy to continue with the arrangement that had existed for 17 years. Hard to see how such an arrangement was 'outrageous' given the enormous success of the NFL.But if that's your starting place - that a desire to continue an agreement that had been in place for two decades and enriched everyone beyond what anyone could have imagined in 1983 was outrageous - then I agree. No further point of talking about this.

 

[cobalt_27]

From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands.

The players didn't actually make any demands. They were more than happy to continue with the arrangement that had existed for 17 years. Hard to see how such an arrangement was 'outrageous' given the enormous success of the NFL.But if that's your starting place - that a desire to continue an agreement that had been in place for two decades and enriched everyone beyond what anyone could have imagined in 1983 was outrageous - then I agree. No further point of talking about this.

That deal is done, it's over. I can't stress enough, people need to move past it. It's expired. They had to come up with a new deal.

That agreement you're talking about was not in place it its most recent form for two decades--a new model was negotiated in 2006 and was in place for only 2 years before the owners said, wait a minute, this is bull#### and opted out of it in 2008. (Actually, the knew it was bull#### before, but didn't want to lose games and agreed to it under the condition that they could opt out if it really indeed turned out to be a bull#### deal, which it was).

I just feel like the players and statements like yours are just playing coy here, like..."What me worry? I don't get why this is all happening now...it was a great deal...it worked for everybody." But, it wasn't. For the owners, it was a total mess. Player compensations increased while average attendance was declining, and teams became more vulnerable to failure under this model. They had to opt out and negotiate a different deal.

 

[renesauz]

From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands.

The players didn't actually make any demands. They were more than happy to continue with the arrangement that had existed for 17 years. Hard to see how such an arrangement was 'outrageous' given the enormous success of the NFL.But if that's your starting place - that a desire to continue an agreement that had been in place for two decades and enriched everyone beyond what anyone could have imagined in 1983 was outrageous - then I agree. No further point of talking about this.

They demanded full financial records. WHen the NFL tried to accomadate by offering 3rd party audited records, the NFLPA upped their demand, and still wanted line by line records....THAT was outrageous. The NFLPA never moved an inch.MOre importantly is this: WHY on earth do you pro-union guys continue to say that since the last deal worked, it will still work? The world doesn't work that why. Things change, businesses change. Just because the last CBA made both sides rich in the 90's, and still worked somewhat well in 2004, doesn't mean that same model will continue to work in 2012 and beyond. The BUSINESSMEN have determined that the model will NOT work in the future, and I find their analyses far more credible than the claims of a bunch of players who care only about TODAY...what they make in the next 2-4 years.

I hold no grudge against the players for fighting against a real life pay cut. I agree that the NFL had insufficient justification for it, but they do have a very valid and legitimate concern about the model. The players seem to be fighting not to maintain the 140 million or so total salary they have, but to ensure that salary continues to grow at the same relative pace...a pace which, under the current economic conditions, will cause owner profits %s to drop, and apparently already has. Players real-life raises should not cause owners profits to sink. PROFITS and RAISES should mirror each other. Not revenue, PROFITS.

 

[Rockchild]

From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands.

The players didn't actually make any demands. They were more than happy to continue with the arrangement that had existed for 17 years. Hard to see how such an arrangement was 'outrageous' given the enormous success of the NFL.But if that's your starting place - that a desire to continue an agreement that had been in place for two decades and enriched everyone beyond what anyone could have imagined in 1983 was outrageous - then I agree. No further point of talking about this.

They demanded full financial records. WHen the NFL tried to accomadate by offering 3rd party audited records, the NFLPA upped their demand, and still wanted line by line records....THAT was outrageous. The NFLPA never moved an inch.MOre importantly is this: WHY on earth do you pro-union guys continue to say that since the last deal worked, it will still work? The world doesn't work that why. Things change, businesses change. Just because the last CBA made both sides rich in the 90's, and still worked somewhat well in 2004, doesn't mean that same model will continue to work in 2012 and beyond. The BUSINESSMEN have determined that the model will NOT work in the future, and I find their analyses far more credible than the claims of a bunch of players who care only about TODAY...what they make in the next 2-4 years.

I hold no grudge against the players for fighting against a real life pay cut. I agree that the NFL had insufficient justification for it, but they do have a very valid and legitimate concern about the model. The players seem to be fighting not to maintain the 140 million or so total salary they have, but to ensure that salary continues to grow at the same relative pace...a pace which, under the current economic conditions, will cause owner profits %s to drop, and apparently already has. Players real-life raises should not cause owners profits to sink. PROFITS and RAISES should mirror each other. Not revenue, PROFITS.

Why would we trust the word of these BUSINESSMEN who have already proven to have lied and taken money from the players in the form of a lesser TV deal? And you're right, things change, businesses change but it's a business decision from the labour side too. I'm not saying that the owners aren't necessarily right but they've been the antogonists in this from the day they signed the original deal. And you keep saying the players aren't willing to negotiate but maybe this is their line in the sand and they're not willing to give more. One may not like that stance but it's no different than the owners asking for more. Jusr because someone wants to negotiate doesn't mean you HAVE to.

 

[cobalt_27]

Jusr because someone wants to negotiate doesn't mean you HAVE to.

This is exactly the problem. The league has been built on the success of cooperation and compromise, with the two sides getting a little better deal here, a little worse deal there. By opening up the anti-trust can of worms, the players threaten the very foundation upon which both sides have profited. Rather than negotiate because they feel they don't have to, they are placing the league in jeopardy and at the hands of the judicial branch. Nobody wants this, not even the players.Ultimately, I think a deal gets struck because I don't think the players really want to go through the pain of missing paychecks. But, if they do long-term damage to the league because of this...I go back to my original stance all along...#### the players.

 

[renesauz]

Jusr because someone wants to negotiate doesn't mean you HAVE to.

This is exactly the problem. The league has been built on the success of cooperation and compromise, with the two sides getting a little better deal here, a little worse deal there. By opening up the anti-trust can of worms, the players threaten the very foundation upon which both sides have profited. Rather than negotiate because they feel they don't have to, they are placing the league in jeopardy and at the hands of the judicial branch. Nobody wants this, not even the players.Ultimately, I think a deal gets struck because I don't think the players really want to go through the pain of missing paychecks. But, if they do long-term damage to the league because of this...I go back to my original stance all along...#### the players.

 

[Wadsworth]

Jusr because someone wants to negotiate doesn't mean you HAVE to.

This is exactly the problem. The league has been built on the success of cooperation and compromise, with the two sides getting a little better deal here, a little worse deal there. By opening up the anti-trust can of worms, the players threaten the very foundation upon which both sides have profited. Rather than negotiate because they feel they don't have to, they are placing the league in jeopardy and at the hands of the judicial branch. Nobody wants this, not even the players.Ultimately, I think a deal gets struck because I don't think the players really want to go through the pain of missing paychecks. But, if they do long-term damage to the league because of this...

I go back to my original stance all along...#### the players.

I agree that the players do not actually want this to happen, but it is strong stance to take in negotiations. I have no doubt that the owners would take the same route if they felt it strengthened their position. This is a money grab on both sides and there is a lot of money at stake. The success of the league has raised the stakes to the point that this has to happen and no early compromise agreement was even really possible. As a fan I hate it, but I also understand there was no avoiding it. There is simple too much money involved for either side to risk compromising more than they feel they must. As time and litigation continue how much they must compromise will become better defined.

 

[Rockchild]

Jusr because someone wants to negotiate doesn't mean you HAVE to.

This is exactly the problem. The league has been built on the success of cooperation and compromise, with the two sides getting a little better deal here, a little worse deal there. By opening up the anti-trust can of worms, the players threaten the very foundation upon which both sides have profited. Rather than negotiate because they feel they don't have to, they are placing the league in jeopardy and at the hands of the judicial branch. Nobody wants this, not even the players.Ultimately, I think a deal gets struck because I don't think the players really want to go through the pain of missing paychecks. But, if they do long-term damage to the league because of this...

I go back to my original stance all along...#### the players.

And this has always been managements stance so the only option to labour is to try and #### the owners. It's a big peeing match and, I suspect, you're probably right and the players will eventually cave when cheques get missed. I guess we'll all be happy when seats, food and beer prices go down on game day!! You keep saying the players opened the anti-trust can of worms but they were forced to it by the demands of ownership. The owners had to know that their hardline stance was going to lead to this and yet continued. And the fact that they were prepared, as was pointed out by many touters on here, shows they knew this was a very strong possiblilty, however, by being prepared doesn't prove they wanted to cause it but knowing that it was a strong possibility it still something that they were willing to chance. So the blame is shared for any long term damage to the league.

Is there a deal out there? I would hope so but, unfortunately, I don't see one any time soon.

 

[Wadsworth]

Anyone who thinks that there are white hats and black hats in this situation is fooling themselves. Both sides are all but exclusively focused on their own self interest.

 

[cobalt_27]

You keep saying the players opened the anti-trust can of worms but they were forced to it by the demands of ownership. The owners had to know that their hardline stance was going to lead to this and yet continued.

But, this is not true. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to open up an anti-trust case. The owners moved significantly toward the players goal, they offered up another extension to continue negotiating. The NFL knew the offer wasn't what the players wanted, but that's all part of the negotiations. They moved, offered to extend the deadline and continue talking. The players decertified, the owners responded by locking them out, and here we are. But, in no way was this forced upon them by any demands of anything.

 

[cobalt_27]

Anyone who thinks that there are white hats and black hats in this situation is fooling themselves. Both sides are all but exclusively focused on their own self interest.

Completely agree. Though, I feel the players are wearing a darker shade of gray by comparison.

 

[Rockchild]

You keep saying the players opened the anti-trust can of worms but they were forced to it by the demands of ownership. The owners had to know that their hardline stance was going to lead to this and yet continued.

But, this is not true. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to open up an anti-trust case. The owners moved significantly toward the players goal, they offered up another extension to continue negotiating. The NFL knew the offer wasn't what the players wanted, but that's all part of the negotiations. They moved, offered to extend the deadline and continue talking. The players decertified, the owners responded by locking them out, and here we are. But, in no way was this forced upon them by any demands of anything.

I guess we can go back and forth on this all day but in the end the only parties that can solve this are dancing their dance in the courts right now. I'm a realist, no matter my 'loyalties', and concede that the owners will 'win' in the long run as they have the financial resources and concensus resolve that the individual players don't. Sad but true. The players realize this and that is why they are using the court to protect their negotiating position. Without the anti-trust lawsuit they have little leverage and this is what I meant by being 'forced' into it. How can you enter into a negotiation without leverage?

 

[massraider]

From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands.

The players didn't actually make any demands. They were more than happy to continue with the arrangement that had existed for 17 years. Hard to see how such an arrangement was 'outrageous' given the enormous success of the NFL.But if that's your starting place - that a desire to continue an agreement that had been in place for two decades and enriched everyone beyond what anyone could have imagined in 1983 was outrageous - then I agree. No further point of talking about this.

They demanded full financial records. WHen the NFL tried to accomadate by offering 3rd party audited records, the NFLPA upped their demand, and still wanted line by line records....THAT was outrageous. The NFLPA never moved an inch.MOre importantly is this: WHY on earth do you pro-union guys continue to say that since the last deal worked, it will still work? The world doesn't work that why. Things change, businesses change. Just because the last CBA made both sides rich in the 90's, and still worked somewhat well in 2004, doesn't mean that same model will continue to work in 2012 and beyond. The BUSINESSMEN have determined that the model will NOT work in the future, and I find their analyses far more credible than the claims of a bunch of players who care only about TODAY...what they make in the next 2-4 years.

I hold no grudge against the players for fighting against a real life pay cut. I agree that the NFL had insufficient justification for it, but they do have a very valid and legitimate concern about the model. The players seem to be fighting not to maintain the 140 million or so total salary they have, but to ensure that salary continues to grow at the same relative pace...a pace which, under the current economic conditions, will cause owner profits %s to drop, and apparently already has. Players real-life raises should not cause owners profits to sink. PROFITS and RAISES should mirror each other. Not revenue, PROFITS.

Why would we trust the word of these BUSINESSMEN who have already proven to have lied and taken money from the players in the form of a lesser TV deal?

I have no idea.

No one has shown that the previous CBA was such a nightmare for the owners, but we are supposed to just take their word for it.

By the way, people need to stop talking about all these owner concessions, until you can list what the owners were actually conceding to the players. Audited financial records are not a concession. Can anyone list one thing the owners offered the players that would be considered an improvement for them? No more restriced free agency? Removal of franchise tags? Anything?

 

[roarlions]

From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands.

The players didn't actually make any demands. They were more than happy to continue with the arrangement that had existed for 17 years. Hard to see how such an arrangement was 'outrageous' given the enormous success of the NFL.But if that's your starting place - that a desire to continue an agreement that had been in place for two decades and enriched everyone beyond what anyone could have imagined in 1983 was outrageous - then I agree. No further point of talking about this.

They demanded full financial records. WHen the NFL tried to accomadate by offering 3rd party audited records, the NFLPA upped their demand, and still wanted line by line records....THAT was outrageous. The NFLPA never moved an inch.MOre importantly is this: WHY on earth do you pro-union guys continue to say that since the last deal worked, it will still work? The world doesn't work that why. Things change, businesses change. Just because the last CBA made both sides rich in the 90's, and still worked somewhat well in 2004, doesn't mean that same model will continue to work in 2012 and beyond. The BUSINESSMEN have determined that the model will NOT work in the future, and I find their analyses far more credible than the claims of a bunch of players who care only about TODAY...what they make in the next 2-4 years.

I hold no grudge against the players for fighting against a real life pay cut. I agree that the NFL had insufficient justification for it, but they do have a very valid and legitimate concern about the model. The players seem to be fighting not to maintain the 140 million or so total salary they have, but to ensure that salary continues to grow at the same relative pace...a pace which, under the current economic conditions, will cause owner profits %s to drop, and apparently already has. Players real-life raises should not cause owners profits to sink. PROFITS and RAISES should mirror each other. Not revenue, PROFITS.

Why would we trust the word of these BUSINESSMEN who have already proven to have lied and taken money from the players in the form of a lesser TV deal?

I have no idea.

No one has shown that the previous CBA was such a nightmare for the owners, but we are supposed to just take their word for it.

By the way, people need to stop talking about all these owner concessions, until you can list what the owners were actually conceding to the players. Audited financial records are not a concession. Can anyone list one thing the owners offered the players that would be considered an improvement for them? No more restriced free agency? Removal of franchise tags? Anything?

The recent arguments have been that the owners knew this was a bad deal from the start while at the same time saying that things have changed recently that make the current model unworkable for the future. Seems like both of those can't be true, the deal was either bad from the start (and the owners have no one to blame but themselves for accepting it) or things have changed since the last CBA started and have made a previously workable model unworkable. My response to the latter is that while things have changed in the past years, there is no guarantee they will remain in the current state. The recession will end, unemployment will fall, people will return to attend football games and spend obscene amounts of money to do so (to the owners benefit). The only thing that may not change is that state and local govts. may not return to spending the kind of money they used to spend to build stadiums. If that is the case, there is no reason to claim that the previous model doesn't work, it just means that the owners have to live with older stadiums longer or find other sources of revenue to build stadiums. Let's face it, in many cases the stadium building has been the equivalent of an arms race where the teams have added more and more amenities to the stadiums that just aren't necessary so they can maximize their revenue and claim to have the best stadium in the country. Stadiums were once used by teams for many decades, now a stadium is unusable after 20 years.

If the owners were convinced that the current model was unworkable, I'd like to see some evidence why that was the case. Let them provide some financial projections with hard numbers that everyone can take a look at and judge for themselves. Do they expect revenues from TV contracts to rise less than they have in the past? If so, why? Do they expect revenues from games to fall or remain constant, or might they rise as the economy recovers? What about revenues and costs associated with the NFL Network? What costs besides players costs are going to increase or fall? Without a concerted effort by the owners to prove why their current model won't continue to work, I just don't see any reason to believe a drastic change was warranted.

 

[cobalt_27]

From what I can tell, both sides made some outraagous early demands.

The players didn't actually make any demands. They were more than happy to continue with the arrangement that had existed for 17 years. Hard to see how such an arrangement was 'outrageous' given the enormous success of the NFL.But if that's your starting place - that a desire to continue an agreement that had been in place for two decades and enriched everyone beyond what anyone could have imagined in 1983 was outrageous - then I agree. No further point of talking about this.

They demanded full financial records. WHen the NFL tried to accomadate by offering 3rd party audited records, the NFLPA upped their demand, and still wanted line by line records....THAT was outrageous. The NFLPA never moved an inch.MOre importantly is this: WHY on earth do you pro-union guys continue to say that since the last deal worked, it will still work? The world doesn't work that why. Things change, businesses change. Just because the last CBA made both sides rich in the 90's, and still worked somewhat well in 2004, doesn't mean that same model will continue to work in 2012 and beyond. The BUSINESSMEN have determined that the model will NOT work in the future, and I find their analyses far more credible than the claims of a bunch of players who care only about TODAY...what they make in the next 2-4 years.

I hold no grudge against the players for fighting against a real life pay cut. I agree that the NFL had insufficient justification for it, but they do have a very valid and legitimate concern about the model. The players seem to be fighting not to maintain the 140 million or so total salary they have, but to ensure that salary continues to grow at the same relative pace...a pace which, under the current economic conditions, will cause owner profits %s to drop, and apparently already has. Players real-life raises should not cause owners profits to sink. PROFITS and RAISES should mirror each other. Not revenue, PROFITS.

Why would we trust the word of these BUSINESSMEN who have already proven to have lied and taken money from the players in the form of a lesser TV deal?

I have no idea.

No one has shown that the previous CBA was such a nightmare for the owners, but we are supposed to just take their word for it.

By the way, people need to stop talking about all these owner concessions, until you can list what the owners were actually conceding to the players. Audited financial records are not a concession. Can anyone list one thing the owners offered the players that would be considered an improvement for them? No more restriced free agency? Removal of franchise tags? Anything?

The recent arguments have been that the owners knew this was a bad deal from the start while at the same time saying that things have changed recently that make the current model unworkable for the future. Seems like both of those can't be true, the deal was either bad from the start (and the owners have no one to blame but themselves for accepting it) or things have changed since the last CBA started and have made a previously workable model unworkable.

The two are not incompatible in the least. The owners knew it was a bad deal, but there was a ton of pressure to get a deal done to prevent a work stoppage. The result was a sweet deal for the players and the reverse for the owners. Coinciding with this has been the recession that has reduced attendance and certainly thwarted the rise in ticket prices the owners hoped to benefit from. I know as a Cowboy season ticket holder, I was certainly expecting larger increases in my ticket prices than what I've seen in the last few years (they've held stable, not increased a bit). But, even without the recessionary pressures, the deal was a bad one to start off with.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

 

[cobalt_27]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

IIRC, it's been shown that the percentage to the players was not higher.If you believe that's incorrect, and that the players were taking down a bigger slice of the pie while the owners were making less money, please provide some evidence.

 

[cobalt_27]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

IIRC, it's been shown that the percentage to the players was not higher.If you believe that's incorrect, and that the players were taking down a bigger slice of the pie while the owners were making less money, please provide some evidence.

Here's a good link that explains it. Cap StuffThe revenue calculation changed in the players' favor significantly under the terms of the revised CBA in 2006, as the players were able to negotiate expanded revenue calculations on which the percentage changed. They basically got an 8% bonus under the new model.

 

[CalBear]

Here's a good link that explains it. Cap Stuff

The revenue calculation changed in the players' favor significantly under the terms of the revised CBA in 2006, as the players were able to negotiate expanded revenue calculations on which the percentage changed. They basically got an 8% bonus under the new model.

Your link says nothing at all about how much of a bonus they got under the new model (if any). The salary cap went up 8% between 2005 and 2006; how much did league revenues go up between 2005 and 2006? Certainly more than 0%; I would bet it was at least 8%. If league revenues went up 8%, the players got nothing at all from the new deal in terms of increased salary.

 

[cobalt_27]

Here's a good link that explains it. Cap Stuff

The revenue calculation changed in the players' favor significantly under the terms of the revised CBA in 2006, as the players were able to negotiate expanded revenue calculations on which the percentage changed. They basically got an 8% bonus under the new model.

Your link says nothing at all about how much of a bonus they got under the new model (if any). The salary cap went up 8% between 2005 and 2006; how much did league revenues go up between 2005 and 2006? Certainly more than 0%; I would bet it was at least 8%. If league revenues went up 8%, the players got nothing at all from the new deal in terms of increased salary.

No, I think you should reread that. Pay close attention to part that explains the differences between the 2 models.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Cobalt every single argument you use has been disproved multiple times. Here are the actual PWC-audited numbers from the previous thread. Which were presented the last time you rolled out this bogus claim:

Players' Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players' Percentage of "Total Revenue" since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

2009–57.1%

Where exactly is the increase?

And where is your evidence that the owners are making less money?

 

[CalBear]

Here's a good link that explains it. Cap Stuff

The revenue calculation changed in the players' favor significantly under the terms of the revised CBA in 2006, as the players were able to negotiate expanded revenue calculations on which the percentage changed. They basically got an 8% bonus under the new model.

Your link says nothing at all about how much of a bonus they got under the new model (if any). The salary cap went up 8% between 2005 and 2006; how much did league revenues go up between 2005 and 2006? Certainly more than 0%; I would bet it was at least 8%. If league revenues went up 8%, the players got nothing at all from the new deal in terms of increased salary.

No, I think you should reread that. Pay close attention to part that explains the differences between the 2 models.

No, I think you should reread it. The models are different; more revenue was included in the top-line calculation, and the players' percentage of that revenue was reduced from 65.5% to 57%. The result is that player salaries went up from $94.5 million to $102 million from 2005 to 2006--which is almost certainly very close to how much they would have gone up under the old system, because however you slice it, NFL revenues were shooting up meteorically during that time frame.According to Forbes, in 2005 the NFL franchises were worth a collective $26.2 billion and brought in $6.0 billion in revenue. In 2010 they were worth $32.7 billion and brought in $8.0 billion in revenue. So under this supposedly awful deal for the owners, their franchises gained 25% in value and revenues went up 33%, and according to Forbes they are more profitable than they were in 2005.

 

[cobalt_27]

Cobalt every single argument you use has been disproved multiple times. Here are the actual PWC-audited numbers from the previous thread. Which were used the last time you rolled out this bogus claimlayers' Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:2000-56.5%2001-52.6%2002-51.8%2003-50.5%2004-52.3%2005-51.1%2006-52.7%2007-51.8%2008-51.0%2009-50.6%Players' Percentage of "Total Revenue" since 2000:2000-61.7%2001-57.1%2002-56.1%2003-54.3%2004-57.0%2005-55.1%2006-58.4%2007-58.0%2008-57.7%2009–57.1%Where exactly is the increase?And where is your evidence that the owners are making less money?

Seriously? What also goes into making money besides revenue?Can you provide a link to those numbers. I missed these data from earlier. Is this what was actually paid or what was afforded by the cap?

 

[cobalt_27]

Here's a good link that explains it. Cap Stuff

The revenue calculation changed in the players' favor significantly under the terms of the revised CBA in 2006, as the players were able to negotiate expanded revenue calculations on which the percentage changed. They basically got an 8% bonus under the new model.

Your link says nothing at all about how much of a bonus they got under the new model (if any). The salary cap went up 8% between 2005 and 2006; how much did league revenues go up between 2005 and 2006? Certainly more than 0%; I would bet it was at least 8%. If league revenues went up 8%, the players got nothing at all from the new deal in terms of increased salary.

No, I think you should reread that. Pay close attention to part that explains the differences between the 2 models.

No, I think you should reread it. The models are different; more revenue was included in the top-line calculation, and the players' percentage of that revenue was reduced from 65.5% to 57%. The result is that player salaries went up from $94.5 million to $102 million from 2005 to 2006--which is almost certainly very close to how much they would have gone up under the old system, because however you slice it, NFL revenues were shooting up meteorically during that time frame.

You're misreading this. Under the original model, the cap would have been $94.5. Under the new model, it became $102. The 2005 cap was $85 (not $94.5), which is a $17m increase.

 

[zadok]

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.

Uh dude? You can't lockout a non-union workforce. The league decided on the lockout at the expiration of the CBA over 2 years ago. They only stalled the implentation of the lockout during the post-March mediation sessions in hopes of a new CBA. But it was a fait accompli, the decertification had nothing to with it whatsoever.

Uhh dude. The players were not interested in negotiating. The last CBA got to their head, they felt entitled to the status quo, and they never were serious about negotiating because they had this atom bomb of decertification and litigation they could drop any time they wanted and try to get the owners to buckle while dealing with the fallout. They were never serious about negotiating. The decertification had everything to do with it because the players felt entitled to keep the terms of the last deal that rocked for them. Decertification was their negotiation strategy...had nothing to do with displeasure over their union. In other words, it's a sham and as been all along.

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

 

[cobalt_27]

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.

Uh dude? You can't lockout a non-union workforce. The league decided on the lockout at the expiration of the CBA over 2 years ago. They only stalled the implentation of the lockout during the post-March mediation sessions in hopes of a new CBA. But it was a fait accompli, the decertification had nothing to with it whatsoever.

Uhh dude. The players were not interested in negotiating. The last CBA got to their head, they felt entitled to the status quo, and they never were serious about negotiating because they had this atom bomb of decertification and litigation they could drop any time they wanted and try to get the owners to buckle while dealing with the fallout. They were never serious about negotiating. The decertification had everything to do with it because the players felt entitled to keep the terms of the last deal that rocked for them. Decertification was their negotiation strategy...had nothing to do with displeasure over their union. In other words, it's a sham and as been all along.

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

Perhaps. But, the owners on the final day requested to extend talks, and the players walked away from the table.

 

[Rockchild]

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.

Uh dude? You can't lockout a non-union workforce. The league decided on the lockout at the expiration of the CBA over 2 years ago. They only stalled the implentation of the lockout during the post-March mediation sessions in hopes of a new CBA. But it was a fait accompli, the decertification had nothing to with it whatsoever.

Uhh dude. The players were not interested in negotiating. The last CBA got to their head, they felt entitled to the status quo, and they never were serious about negotiating because they had this atom bomb of decertification and litigation they could drop any time they wanted and try to get the owners to buckle while dealing with the fallout. They were never serious about negotiating. The decertification had everything to do with it because the players felt entitled to keep the terms of the last deal that rocked for them. Decertification was their negotiation strategy...had nothing to do with displeasure over their union. In other words, it's a sham and as been all along.

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

Perhaps. But, the owners on the final day requested to extend talks, and the players walked away from the table.

Again. Extend talks again. Talks that had become futile as the owners position was clear to the players and that they weren't going to budge. why prolong something that wasn't progressing?

 

[cobalt_27]

FACT A: The lockout may have been a planned response, but it was in fact a RESPONSE to decertification.

Uh dude? You can't lockout a non-union workforce. The league decided on the lockout at the expiration of the CBA over 2 years ago. They only stalled the implentation of the lockout during the post-March mediation sessions in hopes of a new CBA. But it was a fait accompli, the decertification had nothing to with it whatsoever.

Uhh dude. The players were not interested in negotiating. The last CBA got to their head, they felt entitled to the status quo, and they never were serious about negotiating because they had this atom bomb of decertification and litigation they could drop any time they wanted and try to get the owners to buckle while dealing with the fallout. They were never serious about negotiating. The decertification had everything to do with it because the players felt entitled to keep the terms of the last deal that rocked for them. Decertification was their negotiation strategy...had nothing to do with displeasure over their union. In other words, it's a sham and as been all along.

You either don't know or dont care to know that the lockout was happening decert or no. I am not pro-player, btw.

Perhaps. But, the owners on the final day requested to extend talks, and the players walked away from the table.

Again. Extend talks again. Talks that had become futile as the owners position was clear to the players and that they weren't going to budge. why prolong something that wasn't progressing?

I guess that's a matter of perception. The list of concessions made by the owners has been well documented. It was progress and wasn't the "final-final" offer, as I think Jeff Pash put it. But, it was progress. But, don't take it from me. If I remember correctly, several players upon hearing the details of the NFL's offer even grumbled that the decert happened too soon.

 

[Routilla]

So are there any scheduled talks in the near future or are we done for awhile?

 

[atl3695]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

Everyone should dispute this. If you believe this, what teams were they that lost money? Revenue sharing from the TV deal practically guarantees the owners profitability. The average profitability of NFL teams also increased from 2006 to 2010. Not only revenue but profits also. There is a waiting list of people looking to buy an NFL team. All teams in the league could be sold for more now than in 2006.The owners decided 2 years ago to cancel the CBA and made provisions with the networks to keep money coming in. They were ready for a fight. The players want a CBA as much as the owners. The court is just a ploy to gain more leverage. That is what happens during a negotiation. The NFL is not like a coal mine or a factory where workers can be replaced and new employees trained. In the business of the NFL, the players ARE the NFL. They cant be replaced. With the NFL's current setup, any idiot with a checkbook can be an owner. Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in the league, has a small market team, and the Bengals still have $40+ mil a year in operating income.

$Cincinnati Bengals$

Sure Forbes is just estimating, but they should be within 10mil or so. How exactly is there a systemwide problem for the owners?

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

So are there any scheduled talks in the near future or are we done for awhile?

I think talks resume May 16. Mediation is the only way this will be settled, imo. The legal battle is just for leverage. The de-certification gave the players an edge. Now, the owners are threatening to shut the league totally down which will avoid the collusion threats and possibly give them an edge. I take this threat now (shrewdly leaked to the media two weeks before mediation returns) as a way to let the players know this will get ugly if an agreement is not reached.

 

[cobalt_27]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

Everyone should dispute this. If you believe this, what teams were they that lost money? Revenue sharing from the TV deal practically guarantees the owners profitability. The average profitability of NFL teams also increased from 2006 to 2010. Not only revenue but profits also. There is a waiting list of people looking to buy an NFL team. All teams in the league could be sold for more now than in 2006.The owners decided 2 years ago to cancel the CBA and made provisions with the networks to keep money coming in. They were ready for a fight. The players want a CBA as much as the owners. The court is just a ploy to gain more leverage. That is what happens during a negotiation. The NFL is not like a coal mine or a factory where workers can be replaced and new employees trained. In the business of the NFL, the players ARE the NFL. They cant be replaced. With the NFL's current setup, any idiot with a checkbook can be an owner. Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in the league, has a small market team, and the Bengals still have $40+ mil a year in operating income. But the system is "broken"?

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

 

[Wadsworth]

Based on what? You keep saying things like this, but have provided nothing to support your claims. Nothing that hasn't been debunked that is.

The only standard that matters is that the owners were making less money. The cap rules changed after 2006 to give a higher pct to the players, and the owners don't want that model, anymore. I understand you are resistant to this and don't appreciate that owners are in the business to make money and govern their enterprise accordingly. Teams were losing money, which says a lot for this league and its popularity. I don't think anyone is disputing this. These are not teams that just purchased new stadiums either. So, clearly something is amiss.

Everyone should dispute this. If you believe this, what teams were they that lost money? Revenue sharing from the TV deal practically guarantees the owners profitability. The average profitability of NFL teams also increased from 2006 to 2010. Not only revenue but profits also. There is a waiting list of people looking to buy an NFL team. All teams in the league could be sold for more now than in 2006.The owners decided 2 years ago to cancel the CBA and made provisions with the networks to keep money coming in. They were ready for a fight. The players want a CBA as much as the owners. The court is just a ploy to gain more leverage. That is what happens during a negotiation. The NFL is not like a coal mine or a factory where workers can be replaced and new employees trained. In the business of the NFL, the players ARE the NFL. They cant be replaced. With the NFL's current setup, any idiot with a checkbook can be an owner. Mike Brown is one of the worst owners in the league, has a small market team, and the Bengals still have $40+ mil a year in operating income. But the system is "broken"?

I'm not sure if the final 2010 numbers are in, but the Lions and Dolphins (according to Forbes) lost money in 2009. I certainly don't see why there's so much resistance to this concept. The economy sucks, tickets aren't selling like they were, teams are blacking out broadcasts, not as much merchandise sales, etc. It's a profitable business on the whole, no doubt. Valuation of teams have gone up. But, operating profits are not what they once were, and some teams are in the red.

It's all in the accounting. `Forrest Gump' Has Yet to Make a Net Profit That's why the players want the books and one reason the owners don't want to give them up. Accountants can make numbers says almost anything you want them to say.