Let me be clear. The owners do not have a monopoly on being right by any stretch. However, the players are the party that is attempting to significantly change the business model of the NFL, ie. no draft, full free agency, a majority share of all revenues. Do not try to say that they really do not want these things because these as well as many other changes are requested in the suits they have filed. If they were just negotiating ploys, then the players would be negotiating instead of litigating. My main premise is that what makes the NFL the most popular pro sports league is the business model. Without a viable CBA the NFL can exist but without the parity that is currently enjoyed. The revenue sharing that not only sets the cap but also the floor for salaries would most likely cease. All teams would adjust their payroll costs to reflect the changes in revenues. Teams would continue to survive and probably even make money but 75 to 80 % of the teams would be out of the playoffs with the kickoff of the 1st game of the year due to the vast differences in payroll costs of each team. It would be the same 7 or 8 teams year after year who competed for championships. I think this is bad for the league that I enjoy. Someone mentioned that they rooted for Tom Brady over Bob Kraft. I would point out they rooted just as loud for Matt Cassell the year Brady was injured but without the Bob Krafts of the world taking the risks of business there might not be anyone to root for because every player needs a place to work.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
I kind of think the comment about neither side liking the results is a but of posturing by the courts. I've stated this before, I think the courts are trying to get a deal done harder than the owners our players sometimes. I dont think the judges are in agreement about the ruling yet, I think it's pretty unlikely they were on friday, so how can they know neither side will like the ruling before they know what the ruling will be?
I think this was a threat to make the two sides talk.
That's not to say that the end result may be one that both sides don't like. I just don't think they know that for sure yet.
T J
Footballguy
Seriously? Ask the autoworkers unions.
Yes, it was just a cliche. It might end up being true, but that's not why he said it. He said it to encourage settlement.
That doesn't sound inaccurate to you? I've never met a client whose primary objective was litigation.Another way to say the same thing is that the players believed that the owners were obstinately violating their legal rights.If we're going to blame the players for the lockout, I think it's only fair to blame the owners for the litigation.
Not even remotely fair with this statement Maurile. All of the "rights" in question were signed off in the last CBA, and NONE of those "rights" was a sticking point in the new negotiation.If the decertification was about those rights, then the Union would have, and should have decertified BEFORE any negotiation, and made their "case over rights" public. IN that circumstance, the NFL would have no sham claim, the trust suits would be moving forawrd, and the appeals court would probably never have issued a stay.
The problem is that using decertification and trust suits to gain leverage in CBA negotiations is also illegal. The players have acted in bad faith by threatening the suits.
IN the end, I'm more sympathetic to the demands of the players than most of the pro owner crowd. While I think a new model was needed, I agree that no proof exists to warrant an immediate pay DECREASE, rather to limit future increases a little, at least for the next few years. BUt the players choice was litigation, NOT negotiation, and they failed.
I don't think either side is trying to change the basic structure of things. They just want a greater percentage. I'll give my reasoning when I have a keyboard.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
MT, you have frequently said that it is a shared responsibility that they do not have an agreement. Yet, you continue to... and exclusively... defend the players. This seems like a disconnect to me. or, is it just my imagination? If not, can you discuss a little bit your support the players. and would be there come a time when your support for the players would cease? 4 example how much can you imagine a scenario where buy the players were asking for too much? or, do you feel they should use antitrust litigation as a tactic to get anything they want, regardless of how preposterous it is that they ask for?
This really isn't true. The owners had a provision (in the last CBA) whereby the players had to wait six months to decertify and bring lawsuit if they did so after the expiration of the contract (CBA). That contract could be easily extended during negotiations (and was a couple of times).The purpose of that requirement was to dissuade players from using decertification as a negotiating tool....much as the NLA (appears to me) does.The NFL promised that under those circumstances, they would not bring the sham claim.The NFLPA did not want to wait six months because they really were using it for leverage. They had to decertify before the expiration, or wait six months. By doing so before the expiration though, they also allowed the NFL to bring its sham claim into play.It seems clear to me that a Union really can disband any time it wants to...but it can't do so with the intent and purpose of gaining leverage in CBA negotiations, as the NFLPA has done.
There may be a bit of a "pizzing match between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in the players group" too. A free for all system will benefit the stars, while the salary caps and minimums benefit the lower end players.
KCitons
Footballguy
...They are - at worst - asking for status quo. If they are to give up and take less (which - I mean how often has THAT happened with a union).....
Seriously? Ask the autoworkers unions.
Or the teachers unions in Wisconsin.
Opinion of union workers is changing in the United States by both people and politicians. Many feel that workers use the power of a union to hold employers over a barrel to get a pay raise with no regard to the bottom line. Don't get me wrong. The NFL is making money hand over fist. If anything, I think owners and players should both take a cut and give some back to the fans in the form of lower ticket prices.
The United Auto Workers used their leverage to force continuing wage and benefit increases without regards to the bottom line of companies such as GM and Chrysler. When foreign companies are able to build a similar auto for a lower wage (and cheaper retail price) it leaves other auto makers looking for ways to cut costs. In the end, there was not enough money to pay more to workers.
Even though the NFL seems to be in its prime, there could come a day when the NFL peaks. Nothing lasts forever. If players salaries escalate to the point that franchises are no longer profitable, then owners will see no reason to stay in business
Seriously? Ask the autoworkers unions.
Or the teachers unions in Wisconsin.
Opinion of union workers is changing in the United States by both people and politicians. Many feel that workers use the power of a union to hold employers over a barrel to get a pay raise with no regard to the bottom line. Don't get me wrong. The NFL is making money hand over fist. If anything, I think owners and players should both take a cut and give some back to the fans in the form of lower ticket prices.
The United Auto Workers used their leverage to force continuing wage and benefit increases without regards to the bottom line of companies such as GM and Chrysler. When foreign companies are able to build a similar auto for a lower wage (and cheaper retail price) it leaves other auto makers looking for ways to cut costs. In the end, there was not enough money to pay more to workers.
Even though the NFL seems to be in its prime, there could come a day when the NFL peaks. Nothing lasts forever. If players salaries escalate to the point that franchises are no longer profitable, then owners will see no reason to stay in business
This we can agree on!
Wadsworth
Footballguy
This is a key element of events that too often gets ignored.
steelcitysledgehammers
Footballguy
Here are the three best articles that explain why the owners opted out of the CBA and why they're crying poor...
NFL Lockout 2011: Revenue Sharing Is The Elephant In The Room Nobody Wants To Talk About
NFL Lockout 2011: The NFL's Revenue Gap Problem
NFL Lockout 2011: The Haves And Have-Nots Of The NFL
Anyone who sides with the owners has joined this debate in the last six months and hasn't paid attention to how the owners have managed their business over the past two decades. It's the choices, debates and arguments they've had with one another that have lead us to this situation. They finally managed to come to an agreed upon solution to their problems in 2008. Opt out of the CBA and force the players to give back money so they can even the economic playing field between the big market/small market franchises. If the players don't cave, then they're resigned to letting the courts decide who will win the big market vs small market schism within NFL ownership.
If you want to point to one person, one event that lead to this current impasse, look no further than the "stadium deals" Jerry Jones made back in '95 against the leagues wishes. That's where the economic imbalance began which has now lead some of the less profitable teams to post the kinds of returns that allows ownership to claim hardship. I don't dispute there is a problem with the NFL current economic system. I disagree vehemently that it's the players responsibility to solve the problem by accepting less in return for their labor.
I think it's hypocritical for anyone to side with the owners because the league "needs a CBA" when it was the owners who tore up the CBA. I've been following these threads from the beginning and it pains me to see how many assume NFL ownership is full of bright, rational individuals just because they own billion dollar franchises and ignore all the absolutely childish, egocentric and greedy behavior they've displayed over the course of the past decade. These guys are idiots and proved as such by opting out of a CBA to alienate their workforce and fans rather that agree to an equitable means of sharing their half of the $9 billion pie. It doesn't matter if you gave the owners 80% of all revenues, they'd still fight over how to divvy it up and some teams would make ridiculous fortunes while others scraped by or lost money.
I cannot side with the owners because they've yet to come up with a long term solution to their revenue sharing issues. Until that's been resolved between the guys who own the teams, we'll continue to experience "labor strife" as they look to squeeze the players in order to satisfy their greed.
J
NFL Lockout 2011: Revenue Sharing Is The Elephant In The Room Nobody Wants To Talk About
NFL Lockout 2011: The NFL's Revenue Gap Problem
NFL Lockout 2011: The Haves And Have-Nots Of The NFL
Anyone who sides with the owners has joined this debate in the last six months and hasn't paid attention to how the owners have managed their business over the past two decades. It's the choices, debates and arguments they've had with one another that have lead us to this situation. They finally managed to come to an agreed upon solution to their problems in 2008. Opt out of the CBA and force the players to give back money so they can even the economic playing field between the big market/small market franchises. If the players don't cave, then they're resigned to letting the courts decide who will win the big market vs small market schism within NFL ownership.
If you want to point to one person, one event that lead to this current impasse, look no further than the "stadium deals" Jerry Jones made back in '95 against the leagues wishes. That's where the economic imbalance began which has now lead some of the less profitable teams to post the kinds of returns that allows ownership to claim hardship. I don't dispute there is a problem with the NFL current economic system. I disagree vehemently that it's the players responsibility to solve the problem by accepting less in return for their labor.
I think it's hypocritical for anyone to side with the owners because the league "needs a CBA" when it was the owners who tore up the CBA. I've been following these threads from the beginning and it pains me to see how many assume NFL ownership is full of bright, rational individuals just because they own billion dollar franchises and ignore all the absolutely childish, egocentric and greedy behavior they've displayed over the course of the past decade. These guys are idiots and proved as such by opting out of a CBA to alienate their workforce and fans rather that agree to an equitable means of sharing their half of the $9 billion pie. It doesn't matter if you gave the owners 80% of all revenues, they'd still fight over how to divvy it up and some teams would make ridiculous fortunes while others scraped by or lost money.
I cannot side with the owners because they've yet to come up with a long term solution to their revenue sharing issues. Until that's been resolved between the guys who own the teams, we'll continue to experience "labor strife" as they look to squeeze the players in order to satisfy their greed.
J
There's a lot of good, legit points in your argument, but it really falls on it butt in your final paragraph. Player salaries today compared to just 20 years ago are a remarkable counter to your argument. Players are getting paid a fortune to play a game. They are not getting squeezed by any reasonable measure whatsoever.
Until you agree that the owners and players are closer to partners than employees and employers, explaining things to you is moot. "Players are getting paid a fortune to play a game." is a jab at the players who you feel should be thankful that they have the opportunity to make the money they do. These players and those before them have plenty of sweat equity invested in this League that they should feel they deserve to be seen more as partners and not as a replaceable commodity.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Yeah. This is the sense of entitlement that is holding things up in no small measure. They really need to understand that they are employees. Really super incredible, important employees. But employees.Michael Jordan doesn't think of Joel Pryzbilla as his partner. Mario Lemieux doesn't think of Sid Crosby as his either.
Wadsworth
Footballguy
Rush and Howard make 10's millions a year for talking on the radio.Brad Pitt makes 20m+ per for acting in a movie.Why does it matter that it's a game? It's an industry that pulls in many billions of dollars a year, it's not just a game. And people want to watch because it the highest level of the game. If you don't have the best players then the product is compromised. You can go watch high school football for next to nothing if it's just the game you care about.
Wadsworth
Footballguy
Likewise Jerry Jones and Tony Romo are not close to partners, but that's not what the topic is about. The NFL(as a whole) and the players are closer to partners. When 32 individually owned teams band together and seek to make rules for the benefit of their common product which are in violation of federal law, they damn well better be close to partners with their employees. Or it won't work. If the player are just employees like you say then you are effectively saying you want the players to win their antitrust case. Because after that, they would indeed just be employees. If you want to keep something close to the current system then you need to recognize that there is a lot more involved and the players are not just employees.
How do you feel about the entitlement of the baby Rooneys and the baby Maras who have done nothing more than be born into a family that acquired a business that has enjoyed protection from free market economic pressures which may be shielding them from their own lack of business acumen?
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
I'm really considering the word partners with it's full legal import. I think you may be using a more colloquial definition. They aren't partners (in the legal sense) yet their situation requires an agreement to operate and that agreement sets out the parameters of the relationship. In the past, it has even included a percentage element to revenue sharing. That certainly makes it feel closer to a partnership. But in reality, it still isn't. Maybe you could stretch that to fit a limited partnership definition, but really that's not even the case. I think the players union would like more of a full legal partnership. Perhaps that's why they want the books opened. Get in there and second guess owners on all of their business decisions. But that model doesn't work, because the player wants to maximize revenue for only the term of his career whereas the owner has a longview.
I don't begrudge players for making millions nor do I begrudge owners their piece. I honestly believe that the prior CBA wasn't a good one and will ultimately be unworkable. I think the cost of labor needs to come down just as it has everywhere else in this economy. I think the players wi still make millions of dollars and that that number will continue to grow. I think if the owners overreach in bargaining, we will face a strike, and so they'd be wise not to do so.
I don't begrudge players for making millions nor do I begrudge owners their piece. I honestly believe that the prior CBA wasn't a good one and will ultimately be unworkable. I think the cost of labor needs to come down just as it has everywhere else in this economy. I think the players wi still make millions of dollars and that that number will continue to grow. I think if the owners overreach in bargaining, we will face a strike, and so they'd be wise not to do so.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Well, the baby Rooneys had to learn to walk on the Monongahela at an early age.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
The baby Rooneys and the baby Maras are still the class of the NFL. I certainly don't oppose the rights of an individual to pass down their property to their heirs. And I don't know why it should bother you.
You use words like "class" and "entitlement" which develops a picture of some sort of hierarchy of which the players should feel blessed to be included. The blessed ones are the baby Rooneys and baby Maras. It's their sense of entitlement that is holding things up.DISCLAIMER: I have great respect for the Rooney and Mara families and what they have done for building the NFL as we know it. I believe they will be two of the ownership groups most instrumental in reaching a compromise with the players. However, I believe the current leaders of those families need to step back and see what the family members before them have accomplished and work to keep labor peace and not fall victim to the ideas of the "new" owners like Jones and Snyder.
I hope your boss cuts your salary 50%. Because, you know, he'll make more money that way and lots of people are thankful to have any job at all in this economy. And you'll still be making more money than a strawberry picker, and have a much easier job to boot!But seriously, why is the NFL a partnership between the players and owners? Because, absent a CBA, the way the owners want to do business is illegal (ie...in violation of anti-trust laws...the draft, restricted free agency, etc). The players give up their rights in exchange for a bigger slice of the pie than many other workers get, and the NFL gets alot of stability in exchange. Don't pretend it is a one way street in either direction.
This statement cuts both ways. I think that IB is right in that the word "partner" is too easily misconstrued. From one perspective, all valuable employees of any big company are partners...anyone who gets paid a bonus based on corporate performance is a "partner". IN that sense, the owners and players most certainly are "partners", at least on the macro level (NFL and NFLPA, not necessarily the Giants and their kicker). But let's look a little closer at IB (and my) argument. Most of these players only have a college degree because of their football talent. The overwhelming majority have virtually ZERO business sense, and many have little sense of any kind because (many of them) have been pampered much of their lives due to their talents. Why would Billionare business owners even remotely want to acknowledge any sort of business or personal "partnership" with these individuals?
If you want to claim a limited partnership b/n the NFL and the Union, I can buy into that...but it's limited. TO claim a partnership between individual players and the NFL or one of its teams is, IMO, ludicrous. From that perspective, the term employee is far more appropriate, and far more accurate.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
LOL, this sure shows your political bias.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Dear Otis68. My employer cut all salaries by 10% 2.5 years ago. We haven't had even a cola increase since. Yes, it sucks. I'm pretty important to my company, but also replaceable. The current economy required cuts to costs, including labor.
Wadsworth
Footballguy
Get rid of the draft, salary cap, franchise tag, free agency restrictions, etc and those billionaires will never have to worry about dealing with them again other than in an employee/employer relationship. They can sign whoever they choose to afford for whatever deal the market dictates. They can word their contracts however they choose.
But until then, like it or not, those billionaires are going to have to deal with them.
Wadsworth
Footballguy
You are correct, I was assuming a more colloquial definition for partnership.
To add a little bit on to this, the reason the players aren't true partners are many fold. for one The players offer no finacial risk. The best players in the world could get together and play, but without marketing, stadiums, equipment, television contracts, etc. they are just a bunch of great athletes. I understand that without great players the nfl isn't as good, but its the owners that have hired coaches and recruited these players and trained them to create this game. Like it or not the owners are the ones taking all the finacial risk. That's why it isn't a true partnership.
I disagree that the players aren't normal employees. If you take them all away does it ruin the game? absolutely. Would a restaurant be ruined if one day all the chefs walked out? Probably. Is it a 1 to 1 correlation? No, but its a lot closer than comparing true business partners.
Last edited by a moderator:
The last CBA was fine (as far as the players were concerned). The players gave up certain rights, and in return got a percentage of revenues they liked. Once the CBA is gone, the players are no longer entitled to a certain percentage of the revenues, and by the same token, the players are no longer willing to waive their rights under the antitrust laws.That doesn't sound inaccurate to you? I've never met a client whose primary objective was litigation.Another way to say the same thing is that the players believed that the owners were obstinately violating their legal rights.If we're going to blame the players for the lockout, I think it's only fair to blame the owners for the litigation.
Who said that? Decertification is a means to filing an antitrust lawsuit, which is a means to gaining leverage in negotiations by threatening to enforce the players' rights under the antitrust laws.
Do you have a source for that statement?
They tried negotiating. It didn't get anywhere. Further delays would have been harmful. Nobody says you can't keep negotiating after a lawsuit is filed. But they had to get the suit filed early in order to have a chance of getting it resolved in any kind of reasonable time frame.
Last edited by a moderator:
Each item in the league's structure affects things in two ways: it affects the size of the total pie, and it affects how the pie is split between the owners and players.For the most part, the owners' and players' interests are aligned on the first issue: they both want to maximize the size of the pie. (There may be a few cases where that's not true. The players may want to play fewer games even if it means less money, for example. But in general, if stuff like the draft and restricted free agency and drug testing will increase the size of the pie, the players will support those things as long as they are adequately compensated for them when it comes to dividing the pie.)
The lawsuit, including its outcome, doesn't affect any of that. No matter which side wins the lawsuit, the pie-maximizing practices of the league will remain the same. They'll be agreed to by both parties regardless of what happens in the lawsuit. The lawsuit will affect how the pie is divided. If the court says that the players are not entitled to completely unrestricted free agency, then the players won't be able to increase their share of the pie by agreeing to waive that entitlement. If the court says that the players are entitled to completely unrestricted free agency, then the players will be able to demand a bigger share in exchange for the waiver. But if restrictions on free agency make sense — that is, if they increase the total size of the pie — then the owners and players will strike a deal that includes restrictions on free agency no matter which side has veto power over such restrictions. It's just that the price will change. (This is kind of analogous to the Coase theorem. Assigning certain rights to one party versus another party will not affect how their businesses are conducted as long as they can bargain with each other; it will simply affect any transfer payments between them.)
The players want the draft declared illegal not so they can end the draft, but so they can extract payment from the owners in return for allowing the draft. Maybe they shouldn't be able to do that. That's for a different discussion. The point here is simply that any talk about "the players want to radically change the game as we know it" is bull. The players don't want to change what works best for the league. They just want a zillion dollars — same as the owners want. Both sides are threatening to shrink the size of the pie (the players by enforcing antitrust laws, the owners by canceling the season); but those are threats they don't want to follow through on. They're just part of the game of chicken. (I've referred to this rigmarole as a game of chicken a number of times; but that's really what it is.)
steelcitysledgehammers
Footballguy
They are if you ignore the same growth in league revenue and franchise values over the same time.Are you truly behind the owners on this issue or are you just being contrarian to keep these threads alive?
H
The difference is that if a restaurant cuts labor costs because industry conditions demand it, the restaurant can still remain competitive. Meanwhile, if a restaurant cuts labor costs for no good reason except that the owner wants more money, the restaurant will lose its staff to competitors and the restaurant will not remain competitive. The market ensures it. That's one of the reasons markets are so groovy.With collective bargaining between a multi-employer unit and a union, the market is replaced by a bilateral monopoly. That is to say, it's replaced by stubborn negotiations, bluffs, gambits, strikes, lockouts, and general dooshiness. (But don't hate the players; hate the game. That's just how it works.)If the owners get together and decide to reduce labor costs for no good reason, there's no market mechanism to ensure that player salaries won't fall below what players are worth. With a market, player salaries are determined automatically by free bidding. If Restaurant A wants to reduce my pay by 10%, I don't care how much money the owner of Restaurant A is making: I just care whether I can do better at Restaurant B or Restaurant C. I'm protected from Restaurant A's greedy whims by the existence of a free market for my services. Contrariwise, without a market, player salaries are not determined automatically: they must be negotiated — not based on what the market will bear, but instead based on how big the pie is, and what kind of share of the pie the owners can live with such that they'll make a worthwhile return on their investment. (Capital is more fungible than elite skill; so when capital and elite skill pair to make a profit, the capital tends to get an expected return in line with normal market rates after adjusting for risk, while the elite skill tends to get everything above that. With a market, it happens automatically. Without a market, it happens manually through a process of stodgy bargaining. In that case, though, the elite talent has to know how much money is being made before it can know what its fair share should be. So if I'm a group representing all chefs, I do need to know how much restaurant owners are making before agreeing to work for a given wage.)I'm rambling. But my point is that the reason analogies to restaurants and chefs don't work very well is that, in the NFL, there's no free market for player services (as long as the antitrust laws don't apply). That kind of changes everything. It changes things from an ordinary employer-employee relationship, where employee wages are set by a market, to something closer to a partnership relationship, where each side's share of the pie is set not by a market, but by negotiations in which each party will want to know how much the other is making before it agrees to anything. (The owners, of course, already know how much the players are making.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I think both sides are responsible. I've therefore been arguing against the idea that it's all the players' fault. If I saw anybody advance the idea that it's all the owners' fault, I'd argue against that as well. It's just that I haven't seen anyone advance that idea.I've always thought that both sides were trying to act in their own self-interest; and I've never had a problem with that. I did initially think that the owners were miscalculating what was in their best interest. I thought they should have tried harder to stay out of court, because I thought they'd lose there. But the 8th Circuit may be about to prove me wrong, at least with regard to the preliminary injunction enjoining the lockout. (It's hard to say at this point what will happen with the antitrust claims themselves, as opposed to simply the preliminary injunction. We probably won't get that far. The case will probably settle before the antitrust claims are litigated.)I've also thought that a lot of the league's business struggles, if you want to call them that, have been more the fault of the owners than the players. Stuff like overspending (IMO) on stadiums. And I think the owners should pay for their own mistakes, or at least share the burden with the players according to their normal revenue split, instead of asking the players to bear the entire cost via the extra billion off the top. But that's my vague, tentative view as an outsider to the process.I don't really care how the pie is split between the owners and the players. I don't have a rooting interest on that one. I am, however, rooting for the fans, which puts me in the position of rooting for the players' legal interests. Ultimately, I think the structure of the league (draft, free agency, etc.) will be the same no matter who wins the legal battle. So I don't have a rooting interest there. Where I do have a rooting interest is that the players want to have a football season during the haggling over how to split the pie. The owners want to suspend operations until the haggling is over. Since I think they're going to arrive at the same destination either way (in terms of league structure), my preference is to have some football to watch during the haggling. But that's just me being biased as a fan.
Last edited by a moderator:
MT you have obviously kept yourself well informed and have studied many of the issues involved in this dispute. While I disagree with almost every conclusion that you reach, I do appreciate the thought you put into your posts and they do challenge my thinking. I just have one question. Do you believe that if the players legal interests are rewarded by the courts that the popularity, the financial viability, and the parity that the NFL currently enjoys will be enhanced for the fans and the majority of players in the NFL?
Rockchild
Footballguy
This question might be better asked of the owners.
Enhanced? No. I think they'll be exactly the same either way.
az_prof
Footballguy
This is the biggest load of bull I have seen in a long time. Detroit automakers lost out because they didn't make good cars. And they didn't have vision: eg., continuing to make gas guzzlers while the Japanese were wisely preparing a fleet of fuel efficient cars. I don't know where this "blame the worker" myth has come from, but it is based on many false premises. First, if this were true then you would expect to see workers with rising salaries over the last decades compared to management and owners. The exact opposite is the case. Salaries for working class people are flat over the last three decades, while income for the wealthiest people has risen astronomically. The rich are getting richer and the workers are getting left behind and now blamed.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
That's very fair. Thank you.Although, I have no earthly idea what thread you've been reading if you haven't seen people here argue that it's all the owners' fault. That's been a well-documented argument coming from a number of folks. The stadium issue is complicated and not something I have the time to get into. But, I would say that the NFL is a victim of technology and its own success. I think the combination of family cost + the availability of HDTV (and these great TV contracts the owners enjoy) have shifted the momentum away from the gameday experience, thus the declining attendance (and, thus, revenues). The owners, I think rightfully, have had to consider ways to adapt to this, and part of the solution is building new stadiums that cater more to the fan experience...to make it more worth the while to attend games. I'm spoiled in that the season tickets I own are for the Cowboys, and Jerry has really captured the best part of being at home and being at the game with his new stadium. I sort of feel that investment is worth it for the long term, because I know in Dallas, most people really feel it's made it more excusable to get off the couch and fork over the money to go see a game there. The alternative with some of these older stadiums really more enticing to stay home. And, from a business model from the owners' standpoint is to address that by investing in stadium improvements. I think a lot of folks see this as reckless spending. But, I think it's a fair argument that the stadium upgrades are a necessary function of keeping the live game relevant and continuing to generate a revenue stream. Whether it actually works that way or not across the league is another matter. But, I do think it's an important and complicated issue.
Football Critic
Footballguy
Can I be directed to where the labor dispute master thread with useful information is?
What is there to argue about thru the labor dispute? This has nothing to do with our football knowledge, or insight. None of us know what will happen...because its up to judges and lawyers who dont even know. This dont have to do with what players are better or who will perform better, it has to do with contracts, and as far as most on here are concerned when it comes to legalities, I'm sure not too many people listen to anyone on this site. At least I hope people dont come here for legal advice.
Hate me for saying it, but its the truth. 44 pages of arguing, and it has nothing to do with players and fantasy, just legal stuff by all the lawyers here on fbg.
LOL, I come to look up lockout knowledge, and can find very little.
What is there to argue about thru the labor dispute? This has nothing to do with our football knowledge, or insight. None of us know what will happen...because its up to judges and lawyers who dont even know. This dont have to do with what players are better or who will perform better, it has to do with contracts, and as far as most on here are concerned when it comes to legalities, I'm sure not too many people listen to anyone on this site. At least I hope people dont come here for legal advice.
Hate me for saying it, but its the truth. 44 pages of arguing, and it has nothing to do with players and fantasy, just legal stuff by all the lawyers here on fbg.
LOL, I come to look up lockout knowledge, and can find very little.
Last edited by a moderator:
wasn't aimed at you - but I think you got hit by friendly fire.
Your post is the most worthless of the lot.
If that's what the players REALLY want, then they will get it. They would already have it if they had stated this months ago (or better yet, a year ago) and NOT negotiated at all.Your statement rings hollow because, apparently, most of the players DON'T want these things, possibly because they know most of them would earn LESS money, and because it would actually hurt the sport we all love.
Your attack in this post is grossly unfair. Even if you disagree, and think those things would be good for the sport (and I shudder at that notion), the players have on multiple occassions signed off on them in the past...no fair reason to hold them against owners at this point in time.
Yes...the NLA as explained in the briefs. It seems pretty common sense to me that "growing out of a labor dispute" applies to this case. The evidance of this being the case is actually pretty substantial.Of course, laws aren't always applied in common sense ways so I suppose the courts could still rule in the players favor. There's a reason that many people have a distrust and dislike of lawyers.
We've argued this point ad nauseum in this thread. There are a sizeable portion of us who believe the players did NOT negotiate in good faith, and had planned on the decertification strategy from the beginning. WHile you may not agree, you can't deny that there is at least SOME evidance to support the theory (just the same as we can't deny the evidance supporting the theory that the owners always planned a lockout.) Reasonable time frame is a subjective term here. Again...if the Brady lawsuit were legit, and the players truly wanted those things, they can and will get them. To THEATEN the suits as negotiating leverage is what is wrong. The timing of the suits matters. It is an improper use of the law, whether it's ultimately allowed or not. Early in this thread I caught a ton of grief because I stated a firm belief that the players were wrong (in their methods, not necessarily their demands) regardless of what the law might say. A lot of poeple in here seemed to think the law is the law, and if the law allows it, it must be OK. Well....after studying a lot more, reading every brief linked in here, and looking at the laws myself (a tough task for a non-lawyer)...I can tell you that the NFLs arguments make a butttt-ton more sense to me, and seem to match the wording of the law a lot better than the players arguments do. The fact that they also match my own pre-determined sense of right and wrong could certainly cloud my judgement, but let's not pretend that there is a rational and reasonable interpretation that does indeed favor the owners.Trust suits are a big deal. I think such suits should never be allowed to be used this way. Players should not be able to switch between the best of labor law and the best of trust law on a dime...ON THE SAME FRIGGIN DAY they were negotiating, supposedly honestly. Apparently, the NLA agrees.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Everyone should understand what Maurile wrote here.
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
This is a rather odd take. We already know that the players can end the draft, gain unrestricted free agency, and really most of the claims in their anti-trust suit. The only real question is when they'll be able to assert those rights. This lawsuit isn't about rights, its about time and leverage.
T J
Footballguy
The players want the draft declared illegal not so they can end the draft, but so they can extract payment from the owners in return for allowing the draft. Maybe they shouldn't be able to do that. That's for a different discussion.
I'm not so sure I buy your theory. I believe if the lawyers for the plaintiffs (primarily Kessler I believe his name is) got their way, that things would in fact be blown up. The draft, free agency, all of it. I think the NFLPA may view things differently, but they're only a trade association now so their voice is meaningless in all this right?
And as for whether they should be able to extract payment for "allowing" the draft, it is exactly this mentality that infuriates me about the player's position. The draft and all the work conditions the players are threatening to blow up, are what has made them wealthy in the first place. Gimme a break.
I'm 100 percent for the owners in this whole thing. 100 percent.
I'm not so sure I buy your theory. I believe if the lawyers for the plaintiffs (primarily Kessler I believe his name is) got their way, that things would in fact be blown up. The draft, free agency, all of it. I think the NFLPA may view things differently, but they're only a trade association now so their voice is meaningless in all this right?
And as for whether they should be able to extract payment for "allowing" the draft, it is exactly this mentality that infuriates me about the player's position. The draft and all the work conditions the players are threatening to blow up, are what has made them wealthy in the first place. Gimme a break.
I'm 100 percent for the owners in this whole thing. 100 percent.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've adjusted my own thoughts a couple times based on MTs arguments. NOt dramatically...but adjusted all the same. I've also learned a lot.
