Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[Idiot Boxer]

I think most of the leagues you mention have a tiered system where teams can move up and or be relegated based upon performance. This system encourages some parity within the tiers.

Relegation does not encourage parity. In fact, it encourages teams to spend at least as much as they can afford to gain a promotion/stay at the top. A move to the second division costs a team millions.

I don't see how that statement contradicts my own. I'd like to suggest a new thread for the parity discussion as it is quite distant tangent of the topic for this thread, however.

Because a team like Fulham doesn't have anywhere near the revenue streams of a team like Man U. More money if soccer means the ability to purchase players from other teams throughout the world and the ability to resign the best players you have as well. To this point, Man U has finished first in the Premiership in 93, 94, 96, 97, 99-01, 03, 07-09, 11. In that time Man U has never finished worse than third and the gap between the top teams and the rest of the league has never been wider as the top clubs continue to purchase the best players from around the world and the smaller clubs lag further behind as revenues for the top teams grow.

Again, this encourages parity within the stratified tiers (as opposed to strict 'divisional' groupings). I'm not suggesting that it creates a parity like the NFL's, but it encourages a greater parity than say...MLB. There are only 20 teams in the Premier league. If MLB did this, the Pirates, Royals and other bottomfeeders would be relegated to the lower league. Those teams who can't or won't spend money to remain competitive will drop out. Those who can/will will get promoted. It doesn't mean that the Yankees would no longer be a perennial playoff team, but it does mean that only the most competitive teams remain at the top playing levels. As you said, there is an incentive to spend money and put a competitive product on the pitch - because the alternative, losing and being relegated - would cost ownership money. In MLB, there is a dis-incentive. McClatchy knows he can't win, so instead of even trying to compete, he pockets his luxury tax revenue and puts a minimally competitive team on the field.

 

[CalBear]

The three NFL teams you added have 9 seasons of .500 or better (since you didn't care to list Arizona's 4 years) while the 3 franchises I listed has a total 4 and one of those teams had zero.Your arguement was that even the bottom dwelling teams in MLB could be considered successful by "a reasonable measure".The Browns tied for a division crown in that time.The Cards went to a Superbowl in that time.Are these not reasonable measures of success?Go ahead and point out again where that success is in the Royals, Nats and Pirates again.

No, I said that bottom-feeder NFL teams are just as bad as bottom-feeder MLB teams. The Lions aren't successful, but they're as successful as the Royals. Bad management will keep your team bad, no matter what the league structure is.

 

[jbobbett]

This is the best statement yet of the anti-parity side of the pro-players side . I disagree that it follows that the parity system is not important for the NFL.

There are two reasons that parity is more important for the NFL than it is for the other leagues.

1) In the NFL every year there are teams at 14-2 or better and 2-14 or worse. 14-2 is .875 winning percentage. If a baseball team did that they would be 142-20. The losing teams would be 20-142. An NBA team would be 72-10 ('95 Bulls!). Football is just a different game, it has more extreme outcomes with parity than baseball or basketball without! What would the NFL see without parity? Many games whose outcomes were in no doubt whatsoever. Games would regularly be decided by 60-70 points. Yes when the Giants played the Cowboys it would epic, but how many 64-0 games would you watch with backups playing the whole 2nd half?

2) The NFL needs fans to watch games other than their home team. The NFL can only profit 16 times a year off a fan who only watches one team. Those other games need to have interest too. MLB, NBA, NHL don't need that to succeed. They only need fans to have passion for one team.

I personally think the other leagues would be more popular on the whole with parity systems in place but I can see the arguments against that point. For football I think it is critical.

In the English Premiere League, Arsenal once won the title by going all 38 games without a defeat. The league continued to grow. In fact, the Premiere League's growth has been largest in foreign markets, such as Asia. I've never spoken to Roger Goodell, but I once had lunch with Paul Tagliabue, and the guy was obsessed with expansion into Asia. If I'm expanding into a foreign market, I want to sell dynsasties and rivalries. I want Manchester United/Liverpool. I want Yankees/Red Sox. I want Lakers/Celtics. I don't want parity. As has been pointed out, college football makes a ton of money by feeding the good teams a bunch of sacrificial lambs for 80% of their games. Whatever we think of the platonic ideal of athletic competition and fairness, the data doesn't lie. The NFL hasn't grown faster than baseball in the past decade (I was somewhat surprised to learn how well baseball has done financially as we've all pronounced it dead). It hasn't grown faster than the European soccer leagues. And, of course, it hasn't even had all that much parity. What parity it does have, I would argue, is more a function of small sample size than anything else.

Did you advise him to scrap this parity system at your lunch? Did he agree with you? Everything I see from the owners and commissioners tells me they think parity is the right way to go.

 

[renesauz]

AND?Trust laws are designed to protect the public interest. The PUBLIC INTEREST. The NFL, as you've rightly pointed out, is a monopoly...but, in general, it's policies have served the public interest and brought us a great game we all love. UNlike the FFB example, the NFL is made BETTER by acting as one unit, as a trust. FFB websites would not....that would NOT serve the public interest.It's time to start applying the trust laws the way they were meant and designed to be applied. If you're worried about "rigging the market" (which is a legit conern when any trust exists), you counter that with federal law, with mediators (with powers), or with regulators (paid for out of the BUSINESSES pockets, not the taxpayers)...not by breaking up the trust which has served the public interests.Just because something's a monopoly doesn't mean the right answer is to blow it up.

All laws were meant to serve the public interest. I don't even know what it means to say that the antitrust laws were meant to serve the public interest. In any case, your argument seems to have it exactly backwards. The Sherman Act says nothing about exempting contracts or conspiracies that restrain trade in the public interest. So it's hard to see how courts could read that provision in. Congress, of course, absolutely has the power to pass a new law or to amend the Sherman Act so that it does so. So I don't understand the argument that the courts, who are not invested with the power to rewrite the law, should do so when Congress, who does have that power, chooses not to do so.Listen, one thing that's really annoying in this thread is to see people who don't know a thing about antitrust law opining on the subject. The NFL's status as a monopoly has absolutely nothing to do with the antitrust issues in this case. The issues would be exactly the same if the NFL had the market share of the UFL or the Arena League. This isn't a Section 2 case. It's a Section 1 case. If you want to argue about what the fair result would be, or what's best for football, or who's the bad guy in this dispute, be my guest. But if you want to argue about how to interpret the law, please take a little time to try to understand what you're talking about.

You're over-analyzing "public interest" here.Public interest is NOT served by having 5 cable companies in the same market, each running their own cables on their own poles. Public interest is better served in that case by granting ONE company the business and appointing a regulator to make sure the company does not fleece the public.Public interest is not served when one supplier of produce buys up every single competitor in a major city, then doubles it rates while losing efficiency (and thus also delivering an inferior product.) Public interest in that case is to bust of the monopoly, promoting heathy competition.We can't "bust up" the NFL. To do so is NOT in the publics interest, because we would get an inferior product (if one at all!) Therefore, it is in the publics interest to leave it as a de-facto trust. This garbage about it being 32 seperate entities is just that...garbage. It's a hybrid.I'll openly admit I don't have as much of a grasp on trust and labor law as some of the lawyers in here. I can't intelligently argue what's legal or not legal. But I can intelligantly argue what makes sense and what doesn't. I have studied history and I do understand why trust and labor laws were written....and it wasn't for this. I was very impressed with the supporting brief by the NHL on behalf of the league because it made sense to me. The argument isn't really about whether to "bust up" the NFL though. The argument, when you really get down to the nuts and bolts of it, is about whether we're going to allow the NFL to continue to grow as one unit, a monopoly, or whether we're going to try to force it to act as 32 independant business. The problem is that we CAN'T force the teams to act completely independantly, as we do in any other business. They can't compete indepedantly like the produce company above. They literraly need each other, working together cooperatively to provide the product. If we admit the league is a trust, and operates best (for ALL OF US) as a trust, then we need to treat it as a legal trust. We can't allow labor to arbitrarily determine when it can or can't be a trust, because LABOR is NOT the defining indicator of when a trust should be allowed...the public interest is.IE: It is completely unreasonable and illogical for a union to be able to disband and expect it's employer(s) to immediately break up their trust. The NLA appears to recognize that fact, and appears to be written specifically to prevent this as a labor negotiating tactic. Now...many in here argue that the "public interest" is served by forcing a lifted lockout. They are correct in a limited sense...we'd have football. I (and others) would argue that public interest is not a short term quick fix. To lift the lockout would legitimize the tactic of the NFLPA and bypasses the labor laws. It is, in many ways, a pre-emptive order to breakup the trust. And THAT does not serve the longer-term public interest (although this is a point we do not all apparently agree on).

 

[Idiot Boxer]

The three NFL teams you added have 9 seasons of .500 or better (since you didn't care to list Arizona's 4 years) while the 3 franchises I listed has a total 4 and one of those teams had zero.Your arguement was that even the bottom dwelling teams in MLB could be considered successful by "a reasonable measure".The Browns tied for a division crown in that time.The Cards went to a Superbowl in that time.Are these not reasonable measures of success?Go ahead and point out again where that success is in the Royals, Nats and Pirates again.

No, I said that bottom-feeder NFL teams are just as bad as bottom-feeder MLB teams. The Lions aren't successful, but they're as successful as the Royals. Bad management will keep your team bad, no matter what the league structure is.

I agree with this. No system, fair or unfair, will save a team from its own ineptitudes. The Orioles spent big money for years and never really amounted to anything. The Matt Millen era Lions were terrible (there seems to be some hope recently). Bad owners/Bad management will doom a team regardless of setup. That said, a good owner/good system team will have a much better chance of achieving success (and long term success) in a league designed for parity. The NFL has its modern-era 'dynasties' - the Steelers and the Patriots most notably - do it based upon quality ownership, good management, front offices and coaching. While the Yankees typically are thought of as having a good organization (and they are), a lot of mistakes can be covered up with spending. It is more difficult (though not impossible) for a team with limited payroll, good management, good coaching to rise to the top (and more importantly - remain there) in MLB. It is why the dynasties in the NFL are more highly revered and those in MLB are a product of the system and financial ability.

 

[scoobygang]

Did you advise him to scrap this parity system at your lunch? Did he agree with you? Everything I see from the owners and commissioners tells me they think parity is the right way to go.

I did tell him that I thought he'd enjoy the salmon. No, I didn't presume to tell him anything. The NFL does seem to value parity, which is their prerogative so long as they do so through means that are legal. I'm not going into how I think a court considering an antitrust claim should or should not credit that value when performing a rule of reason analysis. We're not even at that stage in the discussion yet, and I couldn't comment if I wanted to.But I think it's fair to say that I haven't seen very good empirical evidence that the success of a sports league depends on parity. What empirical evidence that I've seen seems to lean in the opposite direction.

 

[jbobbett]

Did you advise him to scrap this parity system at your lunch? Did he agree with you? Everything I see from the owners and commissioners tells me they think parity is the right way to go.

I did tell him that I thought he'd enjoy the salmon. No, I didn't presume to tell him anything. The NFL does seem to value parity, which is their prerogative so long as they do so through means that are legal. I'm not going into how I think a court considering an antitrust claim should or should not credit that value when performing a rule of reason analysis. We're not even at that stage in the discussion yet, and I couldn't comment if I wanted to.But I think it's fair to say that I haven't seen very good empirical evidence that the success of a sports league depends on parity. What empirical evidence that I've seen seems to lean in the opposite direction.

So you think that all the things the big 4 american leagues do to give the have-nots a chance to compete: drafts, limits on free agency, luxury tax, arbitration, salary cap, max contracts, franchise tag, etc, are all misguided. That the empirical evidence suggests they would be better off moving away from parity and creating semi-permanent big market dynasties? I think you are way out on a limb there. All these leagues, operating and evolving for all these years, also seeing how all the leagues around the world operate and succeed/fail, have chosen these methods.

 

[roadkill1292]

Did you advise him to scrap this parity system at your lunch? Did he agree with you? Everything I see from the owners and commissioners tells me they think parity is the right way to go.

I did tell him that I thought he'd enjoy the salmon. No, I didn't presume to tell him anything. The NFL does seem to value parity, which is their prerogative so long as they do so through means that are legal. I'm not going into how I think a court considering an antitrust claim should or should not credit that value when performing a rule of reason analysis. We're not even at that stage in the discussion yet, and I couldn't comment if I wanted to.But I think it's fair to say that I haven't seen very good empirical evidence that the success of a sports league depends on parity. What empirical evidence that I've seen seems to lean in the opposite direction.

So you think that all the things the big 4 american leagues do to give the have-nots a chance to compete: drafts, limits on free agency, luxury tax, arbitration, salary cap, max contracts, franchise tag, etc, are all misguided. That the empirical evidence suggests they would be better off moving away from parity and creating semi-permanent big market dynasties? I think you are way out on a limb there. All these leagues, operating and evolving for all these years, also seeing how all the leagues around the world operate and succeed/fail, have chosen these methods.

It's a matter of degree. I think a reasonably-ranged salary cap and reasonable free agency restrictions are good for the players, the owners and the fans. I don't think a draft is necessary at all to have a competitively compelling league that would thrive financially.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm not sure how De Smith can even claim with a straight face that the NFL is the one suing not to have football when the NFL has been asking the players to come back to mediation for over a month. In fact, instead if gloating about their win yesterday, the NFL immediately sent the players another proposal to try to get them back to the bargaining table and yet the players seem to be content to play this thing out in the courts.

 

[Mello]

I'm not sure how De Smith can even claim with a straight face that the NFL is the one suing not to have football when the NFL has been asking the players to come back to mediation for over a month. In fact, instead if gloating about their win yesterday, the NFL immediately sent the players another proposal to try to get them back to the bargaining table and yet the players seem to be content to play this thing out in the courts.

Easily. The NFL asking to go back to mediation is PR. There is no union. The players do not have collective bargaining rights anymore. The NFL is free to setup whatever rules they want at any time. They are also free to offer a settlement to the lawsuit that could result in a CBA with the union reorganizing. The NFL has refused to do either and have chosen to lockout the players.

 

[cvnpoka]

I'm not sure English/Spanish/etc soccer could be more popular. But I'll grant that it's not impossible.

Will you grant that anyone asserting lack of parity will kill a sport is talking out their ### with no evidence anywhere on the planet to support the claim?

I do grant that "Kill" may be too strong a term.My point is that there are many fans who do not follow sports leagues which lack parity, EXCEPT when the local team is doing well. Others not at all. Your claim seems to suggest that the NFL wouldn't miss a beat because there are successful leagues in the world without it. That's not just conjecture, but illogical conjecture since we have multiple examples just in this thread of individuals who demand some sort of parity.

now that is truly illogical conjecture. those individuals are negligible if the nfl can gain millions more fans in nyc, los angeles, london, tokyo, beijing, etc.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fda71b/article/appeals-court-grants-nfl-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal?module=HP_headlines

Yeah, I'm struggling to find what's so cool about it. It's not even remotely factually correct. Is it? I thought the players decertified, the owners locked them out, the players filed anti-trust suit and requested that the courts lift the lockout. Where in this are the owners suing anybody? Seems the other way around, no? Is he that delusional?

The NFL filed a complaint against the players before the NLRB. It's not a stretch to call that suing. (And they did that before the players filed suit.) The complaint was amended to include a charge that the NFLPA's decertification was a sham, the purpose of which amendment was to establish the legality of the lockout. So in that sense, the NFL has sued to not play its game. (I'm not sure whether that's what Smith meant.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

There's a difference between a competitive market for labor or for FF advice, on the one hand, and collective bargaining with a multi-employer bargaining unit, on the other.In a competitive market, there's no need to look at what kind of profits business-owners are making. If FBG pays to little, the staff will go to a competitor. If FBG charges too much, the subscribers will go to a competitor. FBG hasn't gotten together with a number of other FF-advice providers to agree on what to pay writers or on a subscription price. There's a competitive market for those things. Within that context, FBG's profits are nobody else's business. The more they make, the more power to 'em.With the NFL, the Lions and Ravens have gotten together and agreed on a salary cap. There isn't a (completely) competitive market for player services. When there's no competitive market to automatically set salaries at the going market rate, the alternative is to divide up the profits at some agreed-upon split (agreed upon, that is, by both the owners and the players). In order to agree about how to divide up the profits, the players have to see what the profits are, and how they are calculated, and what kind management decisions affect them for better and for worse.

 

[Andrew Garda]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

No. The plaintiffs in this case are Brady, et all. They are the one's taking the initiative in courts. Just because the owners appealed in the district court ruling it does not mean that the owners are suing.

This is what I'm saying.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So you think that all the things the big 4 american leagues do to give the have-nots a chance to compete: drafts, limits on free agency, luxury tax, arbitration, salary cap, max contracts, franchise tag, etc, are all misguided. That the empirical evidence suggests they would be better off moving away from parity and creating semi-permanent big market dynasties? I think you are way out on a limb there. All these leagues, operating and evolving for all these years, also seeing how all the leagues around the world operate and succeed/fail, have chosen these methods.

The people who've studied the issue most rigorously, as far as I know, are a couple of economists who've concluded that the draft does not promote parity, but detracts from it. Here's their paper, arguing that while all draft picks are valuable (because all rookies are underpaid compared to veteran free agents in terms of dollars per unit of production), the high first-round picks are less valuable than the low first-round picks because the high first-rounders are more overpaid compared to the rest of the rookies (or less underpaid compared to veteran free agents). So the playoff teams are awarded more valuable picks than the Lions once salaries are taken into account (which they must be, given the salary cap).The paper's conclusions have been criticized, including by me, but it's by a couple very smart guys who put some effort into their research, so there's at least a decent chance they're right, and that the draft detracts from parity.

I think the franchise tag also detracts from parity. It allows good teams who've acquired great talent to hold onto that talent at below-market rates instead of losing it to other teams. What would promote parity, IMO, is fewer restrictions on free agency so that talent-poor teams could catch up more easily with talent-rich teams. (Given a salary cap, of course.)

In any case, I agree with scoobygang that parity doesn't necessarily promote the league's interests.

 

[cobalt_27]

I can see how many would be offended or put off by D.Smith as he does have a swagger that can come off as arrogant. I did like this line he came up with:

As far as we can tell, this is the first sports league in history that's sued to not play its game.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fda71b/article/appeals-court-grants-nfl-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal?module=HP_headlines

Yeah, I'm struggling to find what's so cool about it. It's not even remotely factually correct. Is it? I thought the players decertified, the owners locked them out, the players filed anti-trust suit and requested that the courts lift the lockout. Where in this are the owners suing anybody? Seems the other way around, no? Is he that delusional?

The NFL filed a complaint against the players before the NLRB. It's not a stretch to call that suing. (And they did that before the players filed suit.) The complaint was amended to include a charge that the NFLPA's decertification was a sham, the purpose of which was to establish the legality of the lockout. So in that sense, the NFL has sued to not play its game. (I'm not sure whether that's what Smith meant.)

Yeah, I don't know either. Filing a complaint seems quite a bit different than suing to me. But, whatever. I think DSmith is really resorting to hyperbole, regardless. Nobody--neither side--is suing to not play football games. This is just another example of empty rhetoric, and I sense that more and more people are getting pretty tired of it.

 

[renesauz]

I'm not sure English/Spanish/etc soccer could be more popular. But I'll grant that it's not impossible.

Will you grant that anyone asserting lack of parity will kill a sport is talking out their ### with no evidence anywhere on the planet to support the claim?

I do grant that "Kill" may be too strong a term.My point is that there are many fans who do not follow sports leagues which lack parity, EXCEPT when the local team is doing well. Others not at all. Your claim seems to suggest that the NFL wouldn't miss a beat because there are successful leagues in the world without it. That's not just conjecture, but illogical conjecture since we have multiple examples just in this thread of individuals who demand some sort of parity.

now that is truly illogical conjecture. those individuals are negligible if the nfl can gain millions more fans in nyc, los angeles, london, tokyo, beijing, etc.

How many fans does the NFL have to lose before it's no longer negligible? EVen if only 5% of fans feel as I do about parity...that's a big hit to the NFL's bottom line. I may not be in the majority...but it sure as heck isn't that small a minority. Parity does not have to be important to everyone to be important for the league...can't you see that? If it's critical to even 5% (an extraordinarily conservative figure)...it's critical for the league.Do you REALLY think the NFL can add "millions of fans" in New York, Tokyo, and Beijing by promoting super-teams? Talk about going out on a limb!

 

[cvnpoka]

I really don't want to go into an in depth argument about parity. The NFL by most experts accounts is the most popular sport in the world per capita in the country when you consider the possible competing options. All of you soccer fans realize there is nothing else entertainment wise that comes close to competing with soccer abroad. So you watch what you get - as was said in a great line in a movie "it is not a choice, it is a lack of options". Due to the wide range of sports alone in the USA, for the NFL to have over 50% of the population being at least casual fans indicates the real popularity of this sport. I remember the 70's & 80's where there was not the parity we have today and if the NFL was the most popular it was not by much over baseball and basketball was not far behind. I know a lot of ex baseball fans that quit watching after the strike and MLB became a battle of who could spend the most vs a small market team that would hope to have a "miracle" year once a decade.

I am to the point where I hope we lose the season if it means we can get a 10+yr agreement. Otherwise all of you that just want football, we will be repeating this same crap every year. And for those that don't feel the old NFL business model is broken, have you noticed the large number of stadiums struggling to keep from having blackouts. On the NFL radio, the announcers were just talking about the TB/NYG playoff game where a day before the deadline there were still 10,000 seats not sold. The economic changes are obvious everywhere, the only question I have is how much should be "given" back to the owner's side. But at this point the NFLPA is just stonewalling until they see all item by item financials - which is a nice political move just not very realistic or helpful for an agreement.

it doesnt appear there are options in europe bc soccer has successfully dwarfed all other sports. its easy to argue that options would exist, if they were viable. ofc, they do exist in the form of rugby, hockey, basketball, handball, f1, cycling, cricket.

 

[cobalt_27]

The owners are the ones locking out.... keeping us from football.... but they didn't sue to do it. They didn't take the issue into court. The players did.I'm largely with the players throughout this (not totally b/c they've been boneheads as well) but the owners arent the ones suing.

Yes they are.Once they lost at the district level they sued at the appelate level to have her ruling overturned, and to keep the lockout.Thus Smith is dead on accurate when he says the league has sued to keep football from being played. The earlier ruling would have seen football in a week. But the owners legal action has now prevented it.

Wow. I know you are 100% bona fide on the side of the players. You've got your side to root for and defend and all that. But, my god, this is painfully twisted logic here. Jesus Christ, this is ridiculous.

 

[renesauz]

So you think that all the things the big 4 american leagues do to give the have-nots a chance to compete: drafts, limits on free agency, luxury tax, arbitration, salary cap, max contracts, franchise tag, etc, are all misguided. That the empirical evidence suggests they would be better off moving away from parity and creating semi-permanent big market dynasties? I think you are way out on a limb there. All these leagues, operating and evolving for all these years, also seeing how all the leagues around the world operate and succeed/fail, have chosen these methods.

The people who've studied the issue most rigorously, as far as I know, are a couple of economists who've concluded that the draft does not promote parity, but detracts from it. Here's their paper, arguing that while all draft picks are valuable (because all rookies are underpaid compared to veteran free agents in terms of dollars per unit of production), the high first-round picks are less valuable than the low first-round picks because the high first-rounders are more overpaid compared to the rest of the rookies (or less underpaid compared to veteran free agents). So the playoff teams are awarded more valuable picks than the Lions once salaries are taken into account (which they must be, given the salary cap).The paper's conclusions have been criticized, including by me, but it's by a couple very smart guys who put some effort into their research, so there's at least a decent chance they're right, and that the draft detracts from parity.

I think the franchise tag also detracts from parity. It allows good teams who've acquired great talent to hold onto that talent at below-market rates instead of losing it to other teams. What would promote parity, IMO, is fewer restrictions on free agency so that talent-poor teams could catch up more easily with talent-rich teams. (Given a salary cap, of course.)

In any case, I agree with scoobygang that parity doesn't necessarily promote the league's interests.

I agree that a strong argument could be made that the draft, as it's been done in the past, does not promote parity. The reasons why this is true would disapear with a rookie salary cap, but I sympathize with those who oppose the draft. I don't think a free for all is the best answer, but in the end, the salary cap (and minimum)is far more important to parity than the draft.The franchise tag argument is a bit over-stated though. The way the tag works, the player is not (generally) likely to be significantly underpaid (compared to market)....and even then not more than one year. You almost never see the tag used twice in a row because the tag calls for a big raise over previous years pay, regardless of what the top players at the position make. We can agree that some changes to the RFA system are needed (what happened to V. Jackson should never be possible), but the top tag (the franchise tag) is hardly unfair. (IMO)

 

[cvnpoka]

How many fans does the NFL have to lose before it's no longer negligible? EVen if only 5% of fans feel as I do about parity...that's a big hit to the NFL's bottom line. I may not be in the majority...but it sure as heck isn't that small a minority. Parity does not have to be important to everyone to be important for the league...can't you see that? If it's critical to even 5% (an extraordinarily conservative figure)...it's critical for the league.Do you REALLY think the NFL can add "millions of fans" in New York, Tokyo, and Beijing by promoting super-teams? Talk about going out on a limb!

well it depends on how many fans they gain.and yes, i should not have tossed out a hypothetical number in a specific form like a million. i thought the point would be clear that so long as fans in>fans out, the nfl would benefit. further, its much easier to gain fans in large municipalities, obv due to population pool. and large globally renowned cities on a worldwide scale are much more likely to develop a global following. concisely, i believe that if you transferred the success of the green bay packers to the new york giants, the nfl would have more fans.alternatively, i simply dont believe that you and the rest of the parity diehards would actually ignore football if such changes were made. there is enough inherent luck in football that it would be competitive. and as others have indicated, there are barriers to parity already in place, namely that atrocious management operates with impunity for many years on teams such as the bengals, lions, raiders, cardinals, bucs, but also franchise tags, restricted free agency and uncapped rookie contracts.

 

[Cripster]

The parity argument is a tough one. I am fearful of losing the draft and having open free agency with no salary cap. However, in baseball, I beleived I looked at a Forbes article that cited only 2-3 teams lost money in 2010. I don't remember the specifics. The point is that the NFL will probaly still be # 1 and profitble regardless. What concerns me is that if you are a fan of the football version of the Pirates, Marlins or Royals, your team will lose games consistently but still make money. Once the NFC EAST, Bears, 49ers, Patriots , Jets and some others get theirs, the other teams get theirs.

Maybe there will some limits in play to keep this from happening if it comes to that. I'll still watch, but not as much if we lose the draft and open up free agency.

Guys, the NFL is going to loose fans in this mess no matter which way it goes. Just reading through this thread convinces me of this.

 

[cobalt_27]

Question I have to the pro-player side is: Do you want the players to negotiate anymore with the owners, or are you pleased to just have this dealt with in court. In other words, would you rather that they just not bother with negotiations until after the Eighth Circuit rules on the lockout?

And, if the Eighth Circuit rules that the lockout is legal, what then? Would you prefer that the players not settle at all and make the owners sweat, or would you prefer that they go back to negotiations and just take the best deal they can get so that we can have football again?

I'll be interested to see if the players are involved in negotiations after today's deadline, or if they have no interest in negotiating. I suspect it's the latter, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm not sure how De Smith can even claim with a straight face that the NFL is the one suing not to have football when the NFL has been asking the players to come back to mediation for over a month. In fact, instead if gloating about their win yesterday, the NFL immediately sent the players another proposal to try to get them back to the bargaining table and yet the players seem to be content to play this thing out in the courts.

Easily. The NFL asking to go back to mediation is PR. There is no union. The players do not have collective bargaining rights anymore. The NFL is free to setup whatever rules they want at any time. They are also free to offer a settlement to the lawsuit that could result in a CBA with the union reorganizing. The NFL has refused to do either and have chosen to lockout the players.

Judge Nelson specifically ordered that the NFL could negotiate with the NFLPA trade association right now without it affecting either side's legal claims. So, yes, the players DO have collective bargaining rights of sorts and the NFLPA CAN negotiate and create a deal.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Question I have to the pro-player side is: Do you want the players to negotiate anymore with the owners, or are you pleased to just have this dealt with in court. In other words, would you rather that they just not bother with negotiations until after the Eighth Circuit rules on the lockout? And, if the Eighth Circuit rules that the lockout is legal, what then? Would you prefer that the players not settle at all and make the owners sweat, or would you prefer that they go back to negotiations and just take the best deal they can get so that we can have football again?I'll be interested to see if the players are involved in negotiations after today's deadline, or if they have no interest in negotiating. I suspect it's the latter, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

Well, Adam Schefter is reporting that Goodell, De Smith and the mediator are meeting together for lunch today...

 

[Wadsworth]

Question I have to the pro-player side is: Do you want the players to negotiate anymore with the owners, or are you pleased to just have this dealt with in court. In other words, would you rather that they just not bother with negotiations until after the Eighth Circuit rules on the lockout? And, if the Eighth Circuit rules that the lockout is legal, what then? Would you prefer that the players not settle at all and make the owners sweat, or would you prefer that they go back to negotiations and just take the best deal they can get so that we can have football again?I'll be interested to see if the players are involved in negotiations after today's deadline, or if they have no interest in negotiating. I suspect it's the latter, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

Well, Adam Schefter is reporting that Goodell, De Smith and the mediator are meeting together for lunch today...

Will they have salmon?

 

[cobalt_27]

Question I have to the pro-player side is: Do you want the players to negotiate anymore with the owners, or are you pleased to just have this dealt with in court. In other words, would you rather that they just not bother with negotiations until after the Eighth Circuit rules on the lockout? And, if the Eighth Circuit rules that the lockout is legal, what then? Would you prefer that the players not settle at all and make the owners sweat, or would you prefer that they go back to negotiations and just take the best deal they can get so that we can have football again?I'll be interested to see if the players are involved in negotiations after today's deadline, or if they have no interest in negotiating. I suspect it's the latter, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

Well, Adam Schefter is reporting that Goodell, De Smith and the mediator are meeting together for lunch today...

Isn't today the final day of "forced" mediation? I'm curious what the NFLPA does tomorrow and if they're willing to continue to sit down and share a sandwich with the commish. And, do they ever put out a counter-offer to the NFL's last proposal? Or, is the response of "It's not what we want" the only thing we hear from their side?

 

[GridironMenace]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

The difference is, there are a million and one different fantasy football sites out there that are competing against each other. If you don't like FBG's price, go somewhere else. And if one of their employees wants a raise, and the company refuses, that employee is free to quit and find the salary he is looking for at another company in the same industry. NFL players do not have these options because the 32 separate NFL owners are colluding together and jointly locking out all employees.

What? Sure they do there are other Football leagues and most of these guys have some form of a college degree so they have choices. Just because you have a unique talent or skill does not mean your entitled to make millions.

There are not any other competing football leagues. If FBG went and bought out 99% of the fantasy football sites on the web and then tried to gouge customers for their services or force their employees to take less money they would be sued for anti-competitive practices. Owners of businesses in an industry are required to allow their employees to earn whatever the market can bare. In the case the owners are rigging the market.

What you have just said is wrong on so many levels. First, there are other competing football leagues. There is the UFL. There is the CFL. They can go play football overseas. No one has the RIGHT to play football (not even guys like Peyton and Brady). Playing football is a privilege. If the players don't like the rules, then they have several options: (1) find another league, (2) take on the financial burden (like the owners have) to start/buy a team and create their own league or (3) find another profession.Secondly, in your above ridiculous theory in which FBG buys up 99% of FF sites and price gouges, they would not be sued for anti-competitive practices. You know what would happen, thanks to our free market society. FBG would go out of business (because no one would pay for their product at price gauging levels and new companies, providing a similar service, would produce a similar product at an affordable price and thereby would steal market share from FBG. Ultimately, FBG would drop their prices or go out of business. That's the reality of why your analogy is bogus.Lastly, owners of business' are NOT required to allow their employees to earn whatever the market can bare. I'm assuming you are an adult with a job- with that assumption, if you didn't like your salary you have options. (1) ask for a raise. Feel free to ask for a raise but your boss has the right to say no. (2) You can look for another job that pays a better salary. Once again, it's that free market society we live in.

 

[GridironMenace]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

If the owners ask me to take a large pay cut when the extraordinarily profitable company I work for seems to be fine, I'd expect an explanation. 'We're just not making money' doesn't work - 'we're notmaking money because of A, B & W' does.On the other hand, Joe and David wouldn't be cutting me out of several hundred million dollars either.

Andrew, you can 'expect' anything you want. However, you aren't entitled to it. If you don't like Joe or David's explanation of why they want you to take a pay cut, you are free to get up and find another site to write on or start your own. Joe and David aren't entitled to give you any explanation.The amount of money that Joe or David wouldn't be 'cutting you out of' has no relevance in the principal and the reality of the situation. Whether it is $10,000/year or $10,000,000 year, the situation is the same.

As I have said many times - this is not you and me. your boss isn't the owners you are not the players. Apples and oranges. The NFL is a unique business. Very few industries are comparable.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Please elaborate.

 

[Mello]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it?

Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?

Sound familiar?

- GM

If the owners ask me to take a large pay cut when the extraordinarily profitable company I work for seems to be fine, I'd expect an explanation. 'We're just not making money' doesn't work - 'we're notmaking money because of A, B & W' does.On the other hand, Joe and David wouldn't be cutting me out of several hundred million dollars either.

Andrew, you can 'expect' anything you want. However, you aren't entitled to it. If you don't like Joe or David's explanation of why they want you to take a pay cut, you are free to get up and find another site to write on or start your own. Joe and David aren't entitled to give you any explanation.

The amount of money that Joe or David wouldn't be 'cutting you out of' has no relevance in the principal and the reality of the situation. Whether it is $10,000/year or $10,000,000 year, the situation is the same.

As I have said many times - this is not you and me. your boss isn't the owners you are not the players. Apples and oranges. The NFL is a unique business. Very few industries are comparable.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Please elaborate.

The difference here is that the players do not have the option to get a job with another competing NFL team or to start their own team. The owners of the separate teams have colluded to lock all NFL football players from working and receiving a paycheck until they give in to their demands.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No one has the RIGHT to play football (not even guys like Peyton and Brady). Playing football is a privilege. If the players don't like the rules, then they have several options: (1) find another league, (2) take on the financial burden (like the owners have) to start/buy a team and create their own league or (3) find another profession.

And no group of multiple employers has the right to fix a salary cap. Fixing a salary cap is a privilege. If the owners don't like free markets, then they have several options, such as opening up their books and getting the players to agree to a CBA.You're right that the players aren't entitled to see the books or to make a certain percentage of the league's profits. But the owners aren't entitled to violate antitrust laws. It's all part of a quid pro quo.

 

[GridironMenace]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

There's a difference between a competitive market for labor or for FF advice, on the one hand, and collective bargaining with a multi-employer bargaining unit, on the other.

Oh, but you are forgetting, that there is no union. They split up, therefore they can't collectively bargain. Remember when the union found a legal loophole? So they decertified to try to give it to the owners because if they hadn't they had no case in a court of law. They were putting all their eggs in one basket with the very democratic, pro-union, Judge Nelson. Well look at what just happened. The 8th circuit said sorry Ms. Nelson and guess what is going to happen on June 3rd? The owners will win another judgement. The players have lost. Point being, it doesn't matter if you are talking about FF advice or a muti-employer bargaining unit. The free market still reigns supreme. If the players don't like it, then tough bounce. They are free to retire, find another employer or start their own league/team. They aren't entitled to anything.

In a competitive market, there's no need to look at what kind of profits business-owners are making. If FBG pays to little, the staff will go to a competitor. If FBG charges too much, the subscribers will go to a competitor. FBG hasn't gotten together with a number of other FF-advice providers to agree on what to pay writers or on a subscription price. There's a competitive market for those things. Within that context, FBG's profits are nobody else's business. The more they make, the more power to 'em.With the NFL, the Lions and Ravens have gotten together and agreed on a salary cap. There isn't a (completely) competitive market for player services. When there's no competitive market to automatically set salaries at the going market rate, the alternative is to divide up the profits at some agreed-upon split (agreed upon, that is, by both the owners and the players).

Nice spin. That's a cop out and I think you know it. Al Davis is free to overpay for players, just like Mike Brown is free to underpay players. There is a free market within the NFL.

In order to agree about how to divide up the profits, the players have to see what the profits are, and how they are calculated, and what kind management decisions affect them for better and for worse.

No. They. Don't. Explain to met he financial risk that the players put forward towards the team they play for and the league they play for? None? Good. They are employees. The players aren't entitled to see crap. Sure they would like to see them. Sure it would make things easier. But if the owners don't want to, then they don't have to. They get paid a salary to play football up to a certain standard. Once again, I feel like a broken record, they are free to walk, start their own league or work at the local pizza delivery store. Oh and talk to me when Mr. Litigator, D.Smith, actually tries to negotiate and strike a deal outside of the legal system. This guy is the biggest fraud I've ever seen. This entire time, he's had literally no interest in striking a deal outside the courts. He thought if they decertified, he would have the owners by the Tom and Jerry's. Well, he was wrong. Don't blame the owners. Blame D.Smith for not even trying to strike a deal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Question I have to the pro-player side is: Do you want the players to negotiate anymore with the owners, or are you pleased to just have this dealt with in court.

Come on, man.Question for the pro-owner side: Do you want any puppies to live, or do you want them all dead?

 

[GridironMenace]

It's interesting that so much was made about Judge Nelson's decision. It was deacribed as a total beatdown of the owners with many experts saying it was "appeal proof."And yet, here we are and it seems as if not only was it not appeal proof, but that the Appeals Court is poised to hand HER a major beatdown.Just from a legal standpoint, if this keeps going on it's new current course and Judge Nelson's ruling gets blown up, I wonder what that does to her career? Obviously plenty of judges are overturned all the time, but to have written such a scathing opinion on such a public issue and then to get potentially overturned in a scathing rebuke, I would think any possibility of advancement would seem to be a lot more doubtful.

It does nothing to her career. She is a very liberal judge. EVERYONE knew how she was going to rule before this thing got started. Why do you think that D.Smith didn't even attempt at making a legit deal/concession to the owners? And yes, the 8th circuit that extended the lockout, is a conservative court. Bottom line this is a political issue. It is big labor/union/democrats for the players and free market/conservatives for the owners. It's pretty simple actually.

 

[GridironMenace]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it?

Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?

Sound familiar?

- GM

If the owners ask me to take a large pay cut when the extraordinarily profitable company I work for seems to be fine, I'd expect an explanation. 'We're just not making money' doesn't work - 'we're notmaking money because of A, B & W' does.On the other hand, Joe and David wouldn't be cutting me out of several hundred million dollars either.

Andrew, you can 'expect' anything you want. However, you aren't entitled to it. If you don't like Joe or David's explanation of why they want you to take a pay cut, you are free to get up and find another site to write on or start your own. Joe and David aren't entitled to give you any explanation.

The amount of money that Joe or David wouldn't be 'cutting you out of' has no relevance in the principal and the reality of the situation. Whether it is $10,000/year or $10,000,000 year, the situation is the same.

As I have said many times - this is not you and me. your boss isn't the owners you are not the players. Apples and oranges. The NFL is a unique business. Very few industries are comparable.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Please elaborate.

The difference here is that the players do not have the option to get a job with another competing NFL team or to start their own team. The owners of the separate teams have colluded to lock all NFL football players from working and receiving a paycheck until they give in to their demands.

So what. The NFL is a PRIVATE enterprise. You know what that means? That means they can do what they want. They are not a public organization. The players have NO RIGHT to play in the NFL. Period. End of discussion. That is the advantage of being a private business.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Oh, but you are forgetting, that there is no union.

As far as I know, all demands to see the books were made by the union.

Al Davis is free to overpay for players, just like Mike Brown is free to underpay players. There is a free market within the NFL.

There's a salary cap. (Or there has been. If the owners are cool with having no salary cap or other antitrust violations going forward, then they don't need to open their books.)

Explain to met he financial risk that the players put forward towards the team they play for and the league they play for? None? Good. They are employees. The players aren't entitled to see crap.

And as I pointed out in my last post, the owners aren't entitled to have a salary cap. It's a quid pro quo.

 

[GridironMenace]

No one has the RIGHT to play football (not even guys like Peyton and Brady). Playing football is a privilege. If the players don't like the rules, then they have several options: (1) find another league, (2) take on the financial burden (like the owners have) to start/buy a team and create their own league or (3) find another profession.

And no group of multiple employers has the right to fix a salary cap. Fixing a salary cap is a privilege. If the owners don't like free markets, then they have several options, such as opening up their books and getting the players to agree to a CBA.You're right that the players aren't entitled to see the books or to make a certain percentage of the league's profits. But the owners aren't entitled to violate antitrust laws. It's all part of a quid pro quo.

I disagree with you that the entire NFL has gotten together to fix a salary cap. And I don't believe that you believe that is actually true. You named 2 teams. 2 teams doesn't accurately describe the word 'entire'.

 

[GridironMenace]

Question I have to the pro-player side is: Do you want the players to negotiate anymore with the owners, or are you pleased to just have this dealt with in court.

Come on, man.Question for the pro-owner side: Do you want any puppies to live, or do you want them all dead?

I feel your sarcasm, but can't you admit that D.Smith has done nothing to even try to negotiate. The owners have made the last 3 proposals without even a counter. All D.Smith says is that we'll let the courts handle it. So Cobalt's question was legit.

 

[GridironMenace]

And as I pointed out in my last post, the owners aren't entitled to have a salary cap. It's a quid pro quo.

Stop saying this. It doesn't portray the NFL in an accurate way. It just isn't true.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I disagree with you that the entire NFL has gotten together to fix a salary cap. And I don't believe that you believe that is actually true. You named 2 teams. 2 teams doesn't accurately describe the word 'entire'.

It was part of the last CBA. It included all 32 teams.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And as I pointed out in my last post, the owners aren't entitled to have a salary cap. It's a quid pro quo.

Stop saying this. It doesn't portray the NFL in an accurate way. It just isn't true.

Do I really need to provide a link showing that the NFL has had (and would like to continue to have) a salary cap?

 

[GridironMenace]

It's been nice banter Maurile. I have to go back to work now. I'll respond to any further comments later tonight.

One parting question/comment for you Maurile. I would bet 100 meeeelllllion dollars, that you are a democrat. amiright?

 

[Mello]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it?

Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?

Sound familiar?

- GM

If the owners ask me to take a large pay cut when the extraordinarily profitable company I work for seems to be fine, I'd expect an explanation. 'We're just not making money' doesn't work - 'we're notmaking money because of A, B & W' does.On the other hand, Joe and David wouldn't be cutting me out of several hundred million dollars either.

Andrew, you can 'expect' anything you want. However, you aren't entitled to it. If you don't like Joe or David's explanation of why they want you to take a pay cut, you are free to get up and find another site to write on or start your own. Joe and David aren't entitled to give you any explanation.

The amount of money that Joe or David wouldn't be 'cutting you out of' has no relevance in the principal and the reality of the situation. Whether it is $10,000/year or $10,000,000 year, the situation is the same.

As I have said many times - this is not you and me. your boss isn't the owners you are not the players. Apples and oranges. The NFL is a unique business. Very few industries are comparable.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Please elaborate.

The difference here is that the players do not have the option to get a job with another competing NFL team or to start their own team. The owners of the separate teams have colluded to lock all NFL football players from working and receiving a paycheck until they give in to their demands.

So what. The NFL is a PRIVATE enterprise. You know what that means? That means they can do what they want. They are not a public organization. The players have NO RIGHT to play in the NFL. Period. End of discussion. That is the advantage of being a private business.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. PRIVATE enterprises in this country are still under the law of the US. Competing companies cannot collude to restrict the labor market.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Question I have to the pro-player side is: Do you want the players to negotiate anymore with the owners, or are you pleased to just have this dealt with in court.

Come on, man.Question for the pro-owner side: Do you want any puppies to live, or do you want them all dead?

I feel your sarcasm, but can't you admit that D.Smith has done nothing to even try to negotiate. The owners have made the last 3 proposals without even a counter. All D.Smith says is that we'll let the courts handle it. So Cobalt's question was legit.

So ask D. Smith if he'd like to negotiate. Don't ask football fans if they'd like to see this get resolved quickly. Of course we all do.

 

[GridironMenace]

And as I pointed out in my last post, the owners aren't entitled to have a salary cap. It's a quid pro quo.

Stop saying this. It doesn't portray the NFL in an accurate way. It just isn't true.

Do I really need to provide a link showing that the NFL has had (and would like to continue to have) a salary cap?

Gosh, I have to go. But maybe I misunderstood you. You made it seem like all 32 teams got together to underhandedly decide to not spend more than 'X' amount. That is what I am disagreeing with. I agree that the owners would like to have a salary cap. Again, it's their league if that's what they want, then so be it. The players are free to move onward with a better life if they so choose I suppose. Ok bye for real now.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's been nice banter Maurile. I have to go back to work now. I'll respond to any further comments later tonight. One parting question/comment for you Maurile. I would bet 100 meeeelllllion dollars, that you are a democrat. amiright?

That would be a really bad bet. I'm more libertarian than anything else, and I've never voted for a Democrat for any political office in my life.

 

[roadkill1292]

And as I pointed out in my last post, the owners aren't entitled to have a salary cap. It's a quid pro quo.

Stop saying this. It doesn't portray the NFL in an accurate way. It just isn't true.

Do I really need to provide a link showing that the NFL has had (and would like to continue to have) a salary cap?

Gosh, I have to go. But maybe I misunderstood you. You made it seem like all 32 teams got together to underhandedly decide to not spend more than 'X' amount. That is what I am disagreeing with. I agree that the owners would like to have a salary cap. Again, it's their league if that's what they want, then so be it. The players are free to move onward with a better life if they so choose I suppose. Ok bye for real now.

This is a scary, simplistic misunderstanding of how things work.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And as I pointed out in my last post, the owners aren't entitled to have a salary cap. It's a quid pro quo.

Stop saying this. It doesn't portray the NFL in an accurate way. It just isn't true.

Do I really need to provide a link showing that the NFL has had (and would like to continue to have) a salary cap?

Gosh, I have to go. But maybe I misunderstood you. You made it seem like all 32 teams got together to underhandedly decide to not spend more than 'X' amount. That is what I am disagreeing with. I agree that the owners would like to have a salary cap. Again, it's their league if that's what they want, then so be it. The players are free to move onward with a better life if they so choose I suppose. Ok bye for real now.

The owners would like to have a salary cap going forward. The players would like to see the books. Neither one is entitled to either. (A salary cap violates antitrust laws.) But they can agree to give each other what they want.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Gridiron Menace is setting my efforts back decades.

 

[Wadsworth]

It's been nice banter Maurile. I have to go back to work now. I'll respond to any further comments later tonight. One parting question/comment for you Maurile. I would bet 100 meeeelllllion dollars, that you are a democrat. amiright?

I do not come here to read political debate. Please try and keep your opinions and arguments related to football. It's more than obvious where you stand, to the point that you are ignoring reasonable arguments just so you can jump up on the soapbox. Are you really playing the American free market card in a business with a draft, free agent limitations and a salary cap?