Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

In 1989 Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys and Texas Stadium for $140m. Last year alone Forbes estimates that the Cowboys profited more that $140m. They also estimated the value of the Cowboys at $1.8b. And this is the guy leading the charge to get a better deal with the players because the owners need a bigger piece of the pie.

Jerry Jones has proven a savvy and even visionary owner and has earned great return on his wise investment. Good for him. But these numbers do put into focus the idea that it's not the amount of money the owners are making that is the issue, it how they are choosing to divide it up. And keep in mind the players are negotiating with the NFL, the group of 32 owners, not with any individual so it is not the players task to remedy how the owners decide to share or not share revenue.

This is a geat stat to show the growth of teams in the nfl, and that jerry jones has done a great job improving the value of the cowboys, but it doesn't prove anything about how much money an owner is making. If the cost of running the team is increasing more than the growth of the team, jerry jones may very well be making a lower percentage of profit. I find that unlikely since jerry jones is indeed a savvy owner and probably ensures that he is making plenty, but we don't know what his profits are. He does have a $1B mortgage...

For what it's worth, according to Forbes, the Cowboys took in 420m, netted 143m(before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) and Jerry is on the hook for $200 million in stadium debt.

Jerry's in fine shape, and if more owners shared his level of investment, vision, and stomach for risk, owners and players would be making a hell of a lot more money than they already make. That still wouldn't resolve the issue of how much the players should be making as a percentage. And, unfortunately, the vast majority of teams (if not all of them) are going to lag behind the Cowboys in terms of profits for years (maybe decades). Jerry Jones has been an average to above average owner in terms of assembling a football team. But, he's such an outlier when it comes to the financial/business end of things, I'm not sure if he provides the best barometer for a discussion of league financial health (for either side).

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

But as the rest of your response (see bolded), you are so bias that I will not worry about getting a balanced dialogue going with you. If you cannot see that both sides are greedy than I don't know what to say....Oh and thanks for letting me know how misguided I am.

Biased? Hell yes I'm biased. Just a few posts back you claimed your bias stemmed from the fact you felt the owners intention was the "keep the NFL as it is". I believe it's fairly obvious to anyone following this situation that it's the players who want to "keep the NFL as it is" and NOT the owners.Instead of responding to the arguments I've made regarding your bias you're attacking me because of mine."Both sides are greedy". News flash, EVERYONE is greedy. The owners, the players, you, me, we're all greedy. The difference between the owners and everyone else is they're so greedy they're willing to shut down football and hold the game hostage to satisfy their greed. They've taken greed to new heights. They're the outliers on the greed bell-curve. If you're genuinely comparing the players greed to the owners greed then you're incapable of "balanced dialogue" because you're discounting the degree to which the owners are greedy.We all have a bias. The difference between us is I've explained my reasoning for my bias while you avoided explaining yours in order to point out mine.I'm a rational man. Really. I can be persuaded by evidence and logic. Don't mistake my certainty as being unassailable. I'm only certain of what I say because no one has presented me with any credible evidence to dissuade me from my conclusions. Go back and look through my posts. Read what I've written and attack my arguments and I'll engage in rational debate. But don't discount me just because I disagree with you.Screw the owners,J

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm a rational man. Really. I can be persuaded by evidence and logic. Don't mistake my certainty as being unassailable. I'm only certain of what I say because no one has presented me with any credible evidence to dissuade me from my conclusions. Go back and look through my posts. Read what I've written and attack my arguments and I'll engage in rational debate. But don't discount me just because I disagree with you.Screw the owners,J

Seriously, this entire rant is priceless. I'll let someone else do the useless heavy lifting whilst navigating your delusions/ego. But, I do want to show my appreciation for a brilliantly entertaining post, even if it was unintentional.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

anyway.............

Another secret meeting took place today at an undisclosed location betweeen players and owners, Im assuming Judge Boylan was there too .

 

[cobalt_27]

anyway.............Another secret meeting took place today at an undisclosed location betweeen players and owners, Im assuming Judge Boylan was there too .

But, this is not part of mediation, correct? Both sides agreed they're done with that, right?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

anyway.............Another secret meeting took place today at an undisclosed location betweeen players and owners, Im assuming Judge Boylan was there too .

But, this is not part of mediation, correct? Both sides agreed they're done with that, right?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820375bc/article/league-players-meet-voluntarily-for-second-straight-week?module=HP_headlinesThe NFL and players resumed talks on Tuesday, according to sources, in an attempt to build off last week's secret talks in suburban Chicago, and work toward a resolution to end the three-month-old lockout. The location of this set of talks remains unknown. The NFL declined comment on the matter. The Top 100: Players of 2011 "The Top 100: Players of 2011" countdown continues on NFL Network on Sunday, June 12 at 8 p.m. ET. Stay tuned for a reaction show after players Nos. 31-40 are revealed. » Cast your votes for the "Top 100" Last week's meeting lasted three days, running into Friday's hearing at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, on the NFL's appeal of a lockout-lifting injunction granted to the players by a district court. Following that set of talks, the league and players put out a joint statement. "The parties met pursuant to court mediation," the statement said. "Owners and players were engaged in confidential discussions before Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan. The court has ordered continued confidentiality of the mediation sessions." Both sides in this week's negotiating sessions are using the same cast of characters as last week, a source with knowledge of the situation told NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora. Owners Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots), Jerry Richardson (Carolina Panthers), Art Rooney (Pittsburgh Steelers) and John Mara (New York Giants) -- all members of the NFL's labor committee -- were in attendance last week, as were active players Mike Vrabel, Brian Dawkins, Tony Richardson and Jeff Saturday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith and NFLPA president Kevin Mawae. The set up of the talks is scheduled to be the same as well, taking place over several days as both sides try to build momentum from one sessions to the next and find some consistency with the dynamics of the negotiations. These talks were unexpected after Boylan publicly cancelled the court-ordered mediation set to begin on Tuesday. Sources indicate Boylan moved to cancel this week's mediation in the interest of confidentiality. When asked about the next meeting during an appearance at a military base in Fort Bragg, N.C., last Friday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said, "We will be meeting again." Goodell declined to comment on when, but did strike an optimistic tone. "I think it's fair to say anytime you have dialogue directly, that's going to lead to progress," he told reporters. "I think we need more of that. As you've heard me say many times, I think this is going to be solved through bargaining, not through litigation. So that (Chicago meeting) was a positive sign for us."

 

[T J]

A pretty good series of articles looking at finances in the NFL:http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/18/2000707/nfl-lockout-cba-2011-revenue-sharinghttp://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2004505/nfl-lockout-2011-revenue-gap-problemhttp://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2005431/nfl-lockout-2011-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-nfl

We travel in the same circles.J

That's it in a nutshell. The owner haven't been able to negotiate with themselves to solve the revenue sharing issue and are now looking to get more back from the players to bridge that gap. I don't begrudge them that position, everyone wants more money. But revenue sharing is the key issue behind this labor unrest not player salaries.

This is the primary reason big market teams wanted out of the CBA. They were DONE with revenue sharing. The rich teams didn't want to subsidize the poorer franchises.What I've been puzzling over is why the owners agreed unanimously to dissolve the CBA? Obviously the rich teams wanted out so they could keep what they see as theirs (locally generated revenue), but why would the poor owners be on board for this fiasco? My guess is they were "pitched" the idea by the wealthy owners who promised them not only lower labor costs, but an increased share of future revenues.This goes back to another of my peaves concerning those who support the owners. The owners have yet to offer a shred of credible evidence indicating they're experiencing any of the hardships they claim lie behind the move to renegotiate the CBA. When it comes down to it, even the owners aren't claiming they're poor. They're not even claiming their business is running at a loss. They're claiming they're not making as much money as they used to. While this is true of a handful of franchises, the owners sweeping generalization that the LEAGUE is suffering from these dwindling returns is patently false (which is why no one can present any financial figures to support the owners).The owners KNOW revenues will continue to grow. The leagues numbers look as bleak as they're going to RIGHT NOW. With the recession and the large number of teams that had to invest in new stadiums, this is as bad as it's going to get for the owners and they're still making money. They know that now that most of the teams have new stadiums, they'll only be making more bank going forward. On top of that, they've still got a stadium offer in LA (another large, unused market) just waiting for a team and they've got the Vikings and 49'ers getting stadium offers as well (again to the contrary of the owners claims that such offers have "dried up"). Couple that with the new TV deals which are to be negotiated in a year or two and the owners know there's still plenty of money to be made.So let's get back to why the poorer franchises are on board with this lockout. It's because the richer franchises have promised to get the players off their straight percentage of league revenues and instead get them to agree to some fixed amount that won't grow any larger even when league revenues do. The owners are willing to pay the players more each year. They're willing to increase both the cap and floor each season, they just don't want to have to do so based on total league revenue. They want to control player expense and give them standard COL increases each year while pocketing the remainder. The owners know there is so much growth left in the league that by pinning the player salaries to a fixed amount instead of a percentage, even the poorest teams will be able to turn a profit based solely on shared revenues (TV and Merchandising deals). Essentially the owners want to pin player costs to the lowest common denominator in terms of a franchises profitability. They're looking to guarantee that one cannot lose money as an owner of an NFL franchise.The rich owners have essentially managed to pit the players vs the poorest owners. They want to take the "risk" out of owning an NFL team.Can someone who supports the owners please explain why the owners should be allowed to squeeze the players for more money to provide them with a "risk free" economic system? I've repeatedly read that the owners are due their profits because of the "risk" they take. If their goal is to eliminate all "risk", then should they be allowed to earn anything?Screw the owners and anyone foolish enough to support them.J

Wow. I don't know if it's possible to disagree with a viewpoint more than I do this one. I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken. And I kind of feel like you do except I'm at screw the players and anyone foolish enough to support them. Nothing personal mind you.

 

[D.J.]

Albert breer sounds very optimistic. He seems to think they are making progress.

It can't be bad news, right?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT, I am having a difficult time that someone of your intelligence believes the structure of the league will be the same no matter who wins the legal battle.

It's because I think the players agree with you:

I personally believe that a league with a CBA that is negotiated by both sides creates the most dollars for the players as well as owners.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Antitrust laws were not written with professional sports leagues in mind.

True. They also weren't written with computer software companies in mind. They weren't written with most specific industries in mind.

I am not aware of any other group of competing businesses that work collectively for the betterment of the overall industry.

Oil companies would . . . if not for the antitrust laws. That's likely true of a whole lot of industries.

Baseball has been given antitrust protection by Congress but that seems very selective when all US professional sports leagues work similar to each other with slightly different business models.

Not by Congress. By a Supreme Court having an off day. Federal antitrust laws apply only to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court held that baseball isn't commerce because it's a national pastime and stuff. Other professional sports qualify as commerce.

I do not think the owners should be given everything they have asked for but I do believe the league would be better served if the business model was tweaked versus blown up by the changes the players are requesting.

Agreed. I also think the league would be better served if the business model was tweaked versus blown up by the changes the owners are requesting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"Both sides are greedy". News flash, EVERYONE is greedy. The owners, the players, you, me, we're all greedy. The difference between the owners and everyone else is they're so greedy they're willing to shut down football and hold the game hostage to satisfy their greed. They've taken greed to new heights. They're the outliers on the greed bell-curve.

The owners are willing to shut down football and hold the game hostage because they think it's to their benefit. The players would do the exact same thing if they thought it was to their benefit.It's not like the players have never gone on strike before.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken.

I think your preferences are mutually inconsistent. If you're in the owners' corner, you certainly don't want to see the union broken. The union benefits the owners a lot more than it benefits the players, IMO.

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

Wow. I don't know if it's possible to disagree with a viewpoint more than I do this one. I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken. And I kind of feel like you do except I'm at screw the players and anyone foolish enough to support them.

Nothing personal mind you.

The union has been completely broken. The players decertified. You got your wish, now explain to me why we don't have football?J

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

Let 2007 Art Rooney tell you about the NFL's biggest problem...

Link.

We think the NFL built a very successful model that is now being threatened by a handful of teams and is starting to grow into maybe a third of the league[/B] and has taken an attitude about it," Rooney said. "That's cause for concern."

You didn't think I was pulling my argument out of thin air, did you? Nossir! I took my arguments straight from the mouth of Art Rooney.

It's distasteful that he's now forced to supplicate himself to the whims of these other owners in order to perpetuate this charade.

Screw the owners!

J

 

[T J]

Wow. I don't know if it's possible to disagree with a viewpoint more than I do this one. I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken. And I kind of feel like you do except I'm at screw the players and anyone foolish enough to support them.

Nothing personal mind you.

The union has been completely broken. The players decertified. You got your wish, now explain to me why we don't have football?J

Right. There's no union. got it. Gimme a break.

 

[T J]

I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken.

I think your preferences are mutually inconsistent. If you're in the owners' corner, you certainly don't want to see the union broken. The union benefits the owners a lot more than it benefits the players, IMO.

Broken may be the wrong word. I should have clarified to mean that I hope the union remains but in a severely weakened form.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken.

I think your preferences are mutually inconsistent. If you're in the owners' corner, you certainly don't want to see the union broken. The union benefits the owners a lot more than it benefits the players, IMO.

Broken may be the wrong word. I should have clarified to mean that I hope the union remains but in a severely weakened form.

So you want a union that exists only to do what the owners want. That's an interesting take. I suspect you'll be disappointed.

 

[T J]

I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken.

I think your preferences are mutually inconsistent. If you're in the owners' corner, you certainly don't want to see the union broken. The union benefits the owners a lot more than it benefits the players, IMO.

Broken may be the wrong word. I should have clarified to mean that I hope the union remains but in a severely weakened form.

So you want a union exists only to do what the owners want. That's an interesting take. Just a hunch - but I think you may be disappointed.

I'm sure I will be. I'll get over it.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken.

I think your preferences are mutually inconsistent. If you're in the owners' corner, you certainly don't want to see the union broken. The union benefits the owners a lot more than it benefits the players, IMO.

Broken may be the wrong word. I should have clarified to mean that I hope the union remains but in a severely weakened form.

So you want a union that exists only to do what the owners want. That's an interesting take. I suspect you'll be disappointed.

Ill bet you the union re-forms.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Let 2007 Art Rooney tell you about the NFL's biggest problem...

Link.

We think the NFL built a very successful model that is now being threatened by a handful of teams and is starting to grow into maybe a third of the league[/B] and has taken an attitude about it," Rooney said. "That's cause for concern."

You didn't think I was pulling my argument out of thin air, did you? Nossir! I took my arguments straight from the mouth of Art Rooney.

It's distasteful that he's now forced to supplicate himself to the whims of these other owners in order to perpetuate this charade.

Screw the owners!

J

You're an odd one. One one hand, you seem to understand some of the difficulties with managing 32 different owners. But then everything thereafter falls apart. Your 'screw the owners' right after bemoaning an owner being silenced is odd. Do you mean 'screw Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder and a couple of other ownerships?'...you might get more sympathy with that sentiment. But just as Aqib Talib isn't representative of NFL players, neither is Jerry Jones representative of 'the owners'.

Now you say it is ONLY Jerry Jones' (and I will use "Jerry Jones" as a synonym for the "big market owners" that are 'growing into maybe a third' of the league) that wanted out of the last CBA. That's patently false. The Bengals and the Bills wanted out just as bad. They never wanted in, but capitulated. Now the reasons the Bengals and the Bills wanted out and Jerry Jones wanted out may be different, but the fact of the matter remains it was a heavily pro-player deal and it was bound to end.

The danger here is that the litigation strategy that is currently being employed by the PLAYERS (who, by their own admission, do not want what they are asking for, but are using as leverage) IS somewhat close to what the Jerry Joneses want. No salary cap and no salary floor and no revenue sharing would suit JJ just fine. If he can find a way to work a draft into it, he'd probably be ok without a union and a CBA. Even if he can't, he's probably alright with it (and roadkill would be too). So you have a litigation strategy being employed by the players to gain leverage whose end result may be MORE appealing to a small, but growing conglomerate of the owners. That doesn't sound like a ton of leverage...and it certainly is a dangerous game to play. You're playing chicken with a group who - at least a small fraction of - is HOPING for the crash.

Some here have opined that the owners need a union and a CBA more than the players. I'd argue that that isn't the case. I'd say the small-mid market owners and your 80% journeymen players all want a union and a CBA. The big market owners and the superstar players....they'll be content...maybe even happier, without one.

So if you want to say, screw Jerry Jones, I might join you in an 'amen', but to pin this whole thing on the owners without looking at the dangerous course set in motion by D. Smith that may play right into the devil's hands, you're not looking deeply enough.

Hopefully, this all becomes moot. As I've said before, THIS is the time for a deal. The owners and players are on approximately equal ground. There are potential 'downsides' to both for dragging things out (in addition to the season, a potential ruling against the players in the 8th circuit and outstanding claims against the owners on the TV deal). This is the best time to make a deal and one that the Jerry Joneses will be forced to come to terms with. If either side gains too much leverage, the other side digs in their heels and we get closer to the NFL that only Jerry Joneses want.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I for one, am 100% in the owner's corner on this and personally would prefer to see the union completely broken.

I think your preferences are mutually inconsistent. If you're in the owners' corner, you certainly don't want to see the union broken. The union benefits the owners a lot more than it benefits the players, IMO.

Broken may be the wrong word. I should have clarified to mean that I hope the union remains but in a severely weakened form.

So you want a union that exists only to do what the owners want. That's an interesting take. I suspect you'll be disappointed.

Ill bet you the union re-forms.

Of course it will. But it won't be to do only what the owners want. It will be due to a settlement that makes as much sense for the players as it does the owners.

 

[roadkill1292]

The danger here is that the litigation strategy that is currently being employed by the PLAYERS (who, by their own admission, do not want what they are asking for, but are using as leverage) IS somewhat close to what the Jerry Joneses want. No salary cap and no salary floor and no revenue sharing would suit JJ just fine. If he can find a way to work a draft into it, he'd probably be ok without a union and a CBA. Even if he can't, he's probably alright with it (and roadkill would be too). So you have a litigation strategy being employed by the players to gain leverage whose end result may be MORE appealing to a small, but growing conglomerate of the owners. That doesn't sound like a ton of leverage...and it certainly is a dangerous game to play. You're playing chicken with a group who - at least a small fraction of - is HOPING for the crash.

FWIW (and that's probably very little) I've revised my thinking somewhat on this subject. I appreciate the value of the salary cap and the necessity of a player's union to enable one to be implemented.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Let 2007 Art Rooney tell you about the NFL's biggest problem...

Link.

We think the NFL built a very successful model that is now being threatened by a handful of teams and is starting to grow into maybe a third of the league[/B] and has taken an attitude about it," Rooney said. "That's cause for concern."

You didn't think I was pulling my argument out of thin air, did you? Nossir! I took my arguments straight from the mouth of Art Rooney.

It's distasteful that he's now forced to supplicate himself to the whims of these other owners in order to perpetuate this charade.

Screw the owners!

J

You're an odd one. One one hand, you seem to understand some of the difficulties with managing 32 different owners. But then everything thereafter falls apart. Your 'screw the owners' right after bemoaning an owner being silenced is odd. Do you mean 'screw Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder and a couple of other ownerships?'...you might get more sympathy with that sentiment. But just as Aqib Talib isn't representative of NFL players, neither is Jerry Jones representative of 'the owners'.

Now you say it is ONLY Jerry Jones' (and I will use "Jerry Jones" as a synonym for the "big market owners" that are 'growing into maybe a third' of the league) that wanted out of the last CBA. That's patently false. The Bengals and the Bills wanted out just as bad. They never wanted in, but capitulated. Now the reasons the Bengals and the Bills wanted out and Jerry Jones wanted out may be different, but the fact of the matter remains it was a heavily pro-player deal and it was bound to end.

The danger here is that the litigation strategy that is currently being employed by the PLAYERS (who, by their own admission, do not want what they are asking for, but are using as leverage) IS somewhat close to what the Jerry Joneses want. No salary cap and no salary floor and no revenue sharing would suit JJ just fine. If he can find a way to work a draft into it, he'd probably be ok without a union and a CBA. Even if he can't, he's probably alright with it (and roadkill would be too). So you have a litigation strategy being employed by the players to gain leverage whose end result may be MORE appealing to a small, but growing conglomerate of the owners. That doesn't sound like a ton of leverage...and it certainly is a dangerous game to play. You're playing chicken with a group who - at least a small fraction of - is HOPING for the crash.

Some here have opined that the owners need a union and a CBA more than the players. I'd argue that that isn't the case. I'd say the small-mid market owners and your 80% journeymen players all want a union and a CBA. The big market owners and the superstar players....they'll be content...maybe even happier, without one.

So if you want to say, screw Jerry Jones, I might join you in an 'amen', but to pin this whole thing on the owners without looking at the dangerous course set in motion by D. Smith that may play right into the devil's hands, you're not looking deeply enough.

Hopefully, this all becomes moot. As I've said before, THIS is the time for a deal. The owners and players are on approximately equal ground. There are potential 'downsides' to both for dragging things out (in addition to the season, a potential ruling against the players in the 8th circuit and outstanding claims against the owners on the TV deal). This is the best time to make a deal and one that the Jerry Joneses will be forced to come to terms with. If either side gains too much leverage, the other side digs in their heels and we get closer to the NFL that only Jerry Joneses want.

Very outstanding thoughts IB.

 

[dparker713]

So last year, when I went to the Giants game against Detroit, had the Lions not been able to pay their players that week and there was no game, how exactly do you suppose the Giants would have provided me with a product? A Blue v. White scrimmage?

Have we really hit the point where we are reduced to hypothesizing impossibilities?

The Dodgers, in the nations second largest media market, barely made their payroll to end May and will in all likelihood miss their next payroll in the middle of June. This is hardly an impossiblity, afterall, when is a team more likely to go bankrupt, in the offseason or during the season when they need to send out game checks?

I'm pretty sure that proving that dog#### crappy ownership can manage to bankrupt a franchise despite all the advantages that being in a top flight pro sports league provides isn't really helping your argument here.

Pro football teams have gone bankrupt in the past and they will go bankrupt in the future. Any time a team folds it hurts the league and the other owners, therefore its in all the owners interest to not let that happen.

 

[renesauz]

But I have come to realize that I and several others that seem pro-ownership are really more motivated by "keep the NFL as it is".

Then you're misguided.If that were truly the case then there would be no one on the side of ownership. The owners are the one's who no longer want to "keep the NFL as it is".

Adjusting the money split a few percentage points in the owners direction hardly qualifies as a significant change. KS is mostly right on, I think.

 

[Wadsworth]

Let 2007 Art Rooney tell you about the NFL's biggest problem...

Link.

We think the NFL built a very successful model that is now being threatened by a handful of teams and is starting to grow into maybe a third of the league[/B] and has taken an attitude about it," Rooney said. "That's cause for concern."

You didn't think I was pulling my argument out of thin air, did you? Nossir! I took my arguments straight from the mouth of Art Rooney.

It's distasteful that he's now forced to supplicate himself to the whims of these other owners in order to perpetuate this charade.

Screw the owners!

J

You're an odd one. One one hand, you seem to understand some of the difficulties with managing 32 different owners. But then everything thereafter falls apart. Your 'screw the owners' right after bemoaning an owner being silenced is odd. Do you mean 'screw Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder and a couple of other ownerships?'...you might get more sympathy with that sentiment. But just as Aqib Talib isn't representative of NFL players, neither is Jerry Jones representative of 'the owners'.

Now you say it is ONLY Jerry Jones' (and I will use "Jerry Jones" as a synonym for the "big market owners" that are 'growing into maybe a third' of the league) that wanted out of the last CBA. That's patently false. The Bengals and the Bills wanted out just as bad. They never wanted in, but capitulated. Now the reasons the Bengals and the Bills wanted out and Jerry Jones wanted out may be different, but the fact of the matter remains it was a heavily pro-player deal and it was bound to end.

The danger here is that the litigation strategy that is currently being employed by the PLAYERS (who, by their own admission, do not want what they are asking for, but are using as leverage) IS somewhat close to what the Jerry Joneses want. No salary cap and no salary floor and no revenue sharing would suit JJ just fine. If he can find a way to work a draft into it, he'd probably be ok without a union and a CBA. Even if he can't, he's probably alright with it (and roadkill would be too). So you have a litigation strategy being employed by the players to gain leverage whose end result may be MORE appealing to a small, but growing conglomerate of the owners. That doesn't sound like a ton of leverage...and it certainly is a dangerous game to play. You're playing chicken with a group who - at least a small fraction of - is HOPING for the crash.

Some here have opined that the owners need a union and a CBA more than the players. I'd argue that that isn't the case. I'd say the small-mid market owners and your 80% journeymen players all want a union and a CBA. The big market owners and the superstar players....they'll be content...maybe even happier, without one.

So if you want to say, screw Jerry Jones, I might join you in an 'amen', but to pin this whole thing on the owners without looking at the dangerous course set in motion by D. Smith that may play right into the devil's hands, you're not looking deeply enough.

Hopefully, this all becomes moot. As I've said before, THIS is the time for a deal. The owners and players are on approximately equal ground. There are potential 'downsides' to both for dragging things out (in addition to the season, a potential ruling against the players in the 8th circuit and outstanding claims against the owners on the TV deal). This is the best time to make a deal and one that the Jerry Joneses will be forced to come to terms with. If either side gains too much leverage, the other side digs in their heels and we get closer to the NFL that only Jerry Joneses want.

We disagree on some points but this is one of the better posts in this thread. Jones and the the high revenue owners have indeed put themselves in a strange win if you win and win if you lose situation.

 

[renesauz]

But as the rest of your response (see bolded), you are so bias that I will not worry about getting a balanced dialogue going with you. If you cannot see that both sides are greedy than I don't know what to say....Oh and thanks for letting me know how misguided I am.

Biased? Hell yes I'm biased. Just a few posts back you claimed your bias stemmed from the fact you felt the owners intention was the "keep the NFL as it is". I believe it's fairly obvious to anyone following this situation that it's the players who want to "keep the NFL as it is" and NOT the owners.Instead of responding to the arguments I've made regarding your bias you're attacking me because of mine."Both sides are greedy". News flash, EVERYONE is greedy. The owners, the players, you, me, we're all greedy. The difference between the owners and everyone else is they're so greedy they're willing to shut down football and hold the game hostage to satisfy their greed. They've taken greed to new heights. They're the outliers on the greed bell-curve. If you're genuinely comparing the players greed to the owners greed then you're incapable of "balanced dialogue" because you're discounting the degree to which the owners are greedy.We all have a bias. The difference between us is I've explained my reasoning for my bias while you avoided explaining yours in order to point out mine.I'm a rational man. Really. I can be persuaded by evidence and logic. Don't mistake my certainty as being unassailable. I'm only certain of what I say because no one has presented me with any credible evidence to dissuade me from my conclusions. Go back and look through my posts. Read what I've written and attack my arguments and I'll engage in rational debate. But don't discount me just because I disagree with you.Screw the owners,J

No...you aren't rational. Keeping things the way they were REQUIRES a CBA. THe owners had every right to opt out and ask for a tweak in the split. What the players WANT might be the status quo, but what the players lawsuit demands is a radical change.Your point does not stand up well to logic.

 

[D.J.]

But as the rest of your response (see bolded), you are so bias that I will not worry about getting a balanced dialogue going with you. If you cannot see that both sides are greedy than I don't know what to say....Oh and thanks for letting me know how misguided I am.

Biased? Hell yes I'm biased. Just a few posts back you claimed your bias stemmed from the fact you felt the owners intention was the "keep the NFL as it is". I believe it's fairly obvious to anyone following this situation that it's the players who want to "keep the NFL as it is" and NOT the owners.Instead of responding to the arguments I've made regarding your bias you're attacking me because of mine."Both sides are greedy". News flash, EVERYONE is greedy. The owners, the players, you, me, we're all greedy. The difference between the owners and everyone else is they're so greedy they're willing to shut down football and hold the game hostage to satisfy their greed. They've taken greed to new heights. They're the outliers on the greed bell-curve. If you're genuinely comparing the players greed to the owners greed then you're incapable of "balanced dialogue" because you're discounting the degree to which the owners are greedy.We all have a bias. The difference between us is I've explained my reasoning for my bias while you avoided explaining yours in order to point out mine.I'm a rational man. Really. I can be persuaded by evidence and logic. Don't mistake my certainty as being unassailable. I'm only certain of what I say because no one has presented me with any credible evidence to dissuade me from my conclusions. Go back and look through my posts. Read what I've written and attack my arguments and I'll engage in rational debate. But don't discount me just because I disagree with you.Screw the owners,J

No...you aren't rational. Keeping things the way they were REQUIRES a CBA. THe owners had every right to opt out and ask for a tweak in the split. What the players WANT might be the status quo, but what the players lawsuit demands is a radical change.Your point does not stand up well to logic.

To be fair here, I dont think either side wants to "radically change the nfl"Yes, the owners want more money and to cap rookie salaries and probably tweak a few other things. No they dont want to blow up the concept and start all over.Yes, the players' lawyers are trying to prove that the nfl is breaking every anti-trust law in the books and they will argue for a free market if allowed. No, it wont get to this point because thats not what the players want. It is a way for them to gain leverage. The reason the two sides are talking now is because the leverage that both sides have been fighting for is about equal with both sides realizing that the leverage battle isnt likely to change anytime soon.Both sides know that they have something very lucrative. some have already pointed this out, but ultimately the two sides aren't that far apart. Once they figure out the money, the rest will probably be small changes that most of us won't notice. There is the possibility of some larger changes, but those will likely be things.like expanding the regular season, changing free agency rules, ect. The basic structure of the nfl is likely very safe

 

[roarlions]

But as the rest of your response (see bolded), you are so bias that I will not worry about getting a balanced dialogue going with you. If you cannot see that both sides are greedy than I don't know what to say....Oh and thanks for letting me know how misguided I am.

Biased? Hell yes I'm biased. Just a few posts back you claimed your bias stemmed from the fact you felt the owners intention was the "keep the NFL as it is". I believe it's fairly obvious to anyone following this situation that it's the players who want to "keep the NFL as it is" and NOT the owners.Instead of responding to the arguments I've made regarding your bias you're attacking me because of mine."Both sides are greedy". News flash, EVERYONE is greedy. The owners, the players, you, me, we're all greedy. The difference between the owners and everyone else is they're so greedy they're willing to shut down football and hold the game hostage to satisfy their greed. They've taken greed to new heights. They're the outliers on the greed bell-curve. If you're genuinely comparing the players greed to the owners greed then you're incapable of "balanced dialogue" because you're discounting the degree to which the owners are greedy.We all have a bias. The difference between us is I've explained my reasoning for my bias while you avoided explaining yours in order to point out mine.I'm a rational man. Really. I can be persuaded by evidence and logic. Don't mistake my certainty as being unassailable. I'm only certain of what I say because no one has presented me with any credible evidence to dissuade me from my conclusions. Go back and look through my posts. Read what I've written and attack my arguments and I'll engage in rational debate. But don't discount me just because I disagree with you.Screw the owners,J

No...you aren't rational. Keeping things the way they were REQUIRES a CBA. THe owners had every right to opt out and ask for a tweak in the split. What the players WANT might be the status quo, but what the players lawsuit demands is a radical change.Your point does not stand up well to logic.

To be fair here, I dont think either side wants to "radically change the nfl"Yes, the owners want more money and to cap rookie salaries and probably tweak a few other things. No they dont want to blow up the concept and start all over.Yes, the players' lawyers are trying to prove that the nfl is breaking every anti-trust law in the books and they will argue for a free market if allowed. No, it wont get to this point because thats not what the players want. It is a way for them to gain leverage. The reason the two sides are talking now is because the leverage that both sides have been fighting for is about equal with both sides realizing that the leverage battle isnt likely to change anytime soon.Both sides know that they have something very lucrative. some have already pointed this out, but ultimately the two sides aren't that far apart. Once they figure out the money, the rest will probably be small changes that most of us won't notice. There is the possibility of some larger changes, but those will likely be things.like expanding the regular season, changing free agency rules, ect. The basic structure of the nfl is likely very safe

 

[Jail]

No...you aren't rational. Keeping things the way they were REQUIRES a CBA. THe owners had every right to opt out and ask for a tweak in the split. What the players WANT might be the status quo, but what the players lawsuit demands is a radical change.

Your point does not stand up well to logic.

You've been contributing to the thread, so kudos to you, IB, MT and all otheres in here, but I couldn't help but laugh a little at the bolded. Asking for 1 billion more back is a little more than a "tweak" no?Not that I support Steele's position that it is 100% the owners either. I fall in the MT camp that this is a mess on both sides that let this happen.

 

[renesauz]

No...you aren't rational. Keeping things the way they were REQUIRES a CBA. THe owners had every right to opt out and ask for a tweak in the split. What the players WANT might be the status quo, but what the players lawsuit demands is a radical change.

Your point does not stand up well to logic.

You've been contributing to the thread, so kudos to you, IB, MT and all otheres in here, but I couldn't help but laugh a little at the bolded. Asking for 1 billion more back is a little more than a "tweak" no?Not that I support Steele's position that it is 100% the owners either. I fall in the MT camp that this is a mess on both sides that let this happen.

Fair enough...it's more than a "tweak" (although I don't think anybody expected the owners to get that extra billion), but they were NOT looking for wholesale, sweeping changes either. My point was that the players LAWSUIT demands wholesale sweeping changes, even if the players don't actually want that. Keeping anything close to the status quo requires a CBA, not a court ordered season without a CBA, regardless of the money split.

 

[CalBear]

Keeping anything close to the status quo requires a CBA, not a court ordered season without a CBA, regardless of the money split.

It also requires the players to not be locked out.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so it sounds like this round of top secret meetins are over.

 

[renesauz]

Keeping anything close to the status quo requires a CBA, not a court ordered season without a CBA, regardless of the money split.

It also requires the players to not be locked out.

Come on now...the owners want a CBA BEFORE they proceed with football. The status quo is to operate under a CBA, not a court order. I don't think that it's unreasonable for the owners to want a CBA, and the protections provided, before proceeding. UNless the players REALLY want the free for all system, they should understand that, and actually NEGOTIATE instead of LITIGATE. Thankfully that seems to be happening now.I don't want a lost season any more than anyone else, but blaming the owners exclusively for the situation is beyond ludicrous. BOTH sides need to come to an agreement before football.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I had to look at my address bar just to make sure it still said forums.footballguys.com I was afraid that in some Twilight Zone type of accident I was logged into forums.soccerguys.com

Some of these guys hope one day it will be and we can finally cancel the playoffs

To be fair, soccer is considerably more awesome than football.

 

[Bird]

Keeping anything close to the status quo requires a CBA, not a court ordered season without a CBA, regardless of the money split.

It also requires the players to not be locked out.

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

 

[CalBear]

Keeping anything close to the status quo requires a CBA, not a court ordered season without a CBA, regardless of the money split.

It also requires the players to not be locked out.

Come on now...the owners want a CBA BEFORE they proceed with football. The status quo is to operate under a CBA, not a court order. I don't think that it's unreasonable for the owners to want a CBA, and the protections provided, before proceeding.

They had one. They chose to get rid of it and lock the players out.

 

[coolnerd]

I had to look at my address bar just to make sure it still said forums.footballguys.com I was afraid that in some Twilight Zone type of accident I was logged into forums.soccerguys.com

Some of these guys hope one day it will be and we can finally cancel the playoffs

To be fair, soccer is considerably more awesome than football.

Got the feeling you won't get much support for that on this board.

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

You're an odd one. One one hand, you seem to understand some of the difficulties with managing 32 different owners. But then everything thereafter falls apart. Your 'screw the owners' right after bemoaning an owner being silenced is odd. Do you mean 'screw Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder and a couple of other ownerships?'...you might get more sympathy with that sentiment. But just as Aqib Talib isn't representative of NFL players, neither is Jerry Jones representative of 'the owners'.

I still have a lot of respect for what O.J. Simpson did as a Bills player, but detest him as a person for his choices later in life. Same goes for the Rooneys. I admired their position prior to unanimously agreeing to opt out of the CBA. They went against everything the family stood for and what made the NFL great. He compromised his convictions in order to try and save a few bucks. Guys like that deserve to get screwed. When I say 'screw the owners', I mean ALL the owners. Rooney, Mara, Hunt, Adams, Bowlen, Jones, Snyder. All of 'em.

Now you say it is ONLY Jerry Jones' (and I will use "Jerry Jones" as a synonym for the "big market owners" that are 'growing into maybe a third' of the league) that wanted out of the last CBA. That's patently false. The Bengals and the Bills wanted out just as bad. They never wanted in, but capitulated. Now the reasons the Bengals and the Bills wanted out and Jerry Jones wanted out may be different, but the fact of the matter remains it was a heavily pro-player deal and it was bound to end.

This is simply untrue. Brown and Wilson voted 'nay' during the 2006 CBA because they didn't understand (trust would likely have been a better term to use) the revenue sharing plan cobbled together by Jones, Kraft and Mara at the last second. Their 'nay' votes on the 2006 CBA had nothing to do with the deal being "pro-player" and everything to do with knowing their fellow owners and understanding there was no way the revenue sharing plan, as written, was going to work.

The danger here is that the litigation strategy that is currently being employed by the PLAYERS (who, by their own admission, do not want what they are asking for, but are using as leverage) IS somewhat close to what the Jerry Joneses want. No salary cap and no salary floor and no revenue sharing would suit JJ just fine. If he can find a way to work a draft into it, he'd probably be ok without a union and a CBA. Even if he can't, he's probably alright with it (and roadkill would be too). So you have a litigation strategy being employed by the players to gain leverage whose end result may be MORE appealing to a small, but growing conglomerate of the owners. That doesn't sound like a ton of leverage...and it certainly is a dangerous game to play. You're playing chicken with a group who - at least a small fraction of - is HOPING for the crash. Some here have opined that the owners need a union and a CBA more than the players. I'd argue that that isn't the case. I'd say the small-mid market owners and your 80% journeymen players all want a union and a CBA. The big market owners and the superstar players....they'll be content...maybe even happier, without one. So if you want to say, screw Jerry Jones, I might join you in an 'amen', but to pin this whole thing on the owners without looking at the dangerous course set in motion by D. Smith that may play right into the devil's hands, you're not looking deeply enough. Hopefully, this all becomes moot. As I've said before, THIS is the time for a deal. The owners and players are on approximately equal ground. There are potential 'downsides' to both for dragging things out (in addition to the season, a potential ruling against the players in the 8th circuit and outstanding claims against the owners on the TV deal). This is the best time to make a deal and one that the Jerry Joneses will be forced to come to terms with. If either side gains too much leverage, the other side digs in their heels and we get closer to the NFL that only Jerry Joneses want.

There's really nothing 'dangerous' about this. These guys are diabolically greedy. This is exactly what they had planned. There was no question revenue sharing was dead. The owners simply weren't going to be able to get the 'Jerry Jones' of the league to continue participating in it. I wouldn't be surprised if behind closed doors threats of further anti-trust lawsuits were made. The alternative, no doubt laid out by those seeking to maximize their profits, was to get the other owners behind them in an attempt to ransom the league back to the players in return for more money or allow the league to face the players anti-trust charges and go to a free market system. Why do you find it so unbelievable that this isn't EXACTLY WHAT THE GREEDY OWNERS WANTED? As you point out, regardless of which way it turns out, the rich win. Doesn't that sound exactly like real life? From the small market perspective, at least it gives them a glimmer of hope they'll be able to recoup some profit by reducing player costs. If the small market owners didn't opt out of the CBA and they couldn't force the 'Jerry Jones' of the league to subsidize them, where else would they get the money? This was really their only alternative.Screw the owners!J

 

[T J]

You're an odd one. One one hand, you seem to understand some of the difficulties with managing 32 different owners. But then everything thereafter falls apart. Your 'screw the owners' right after bemoaning an owner being silenced is odd. Do you mean 'screw Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder and a couple of other ownerships?'...you might get more sympathy with that sentiment. But just as Aqib Talib isn't representative of NFL players, neither is Jerry Jones representative of 'the owners'.

I still have a lot of respect for what O.J. Simpson did as a Bills player, but detest him as a person for his choices later in life. Same goes for the Rooneys. I admired their position prior to unanimously agreeing to opt out of the CBA. They went against everything the family stood for and what made the NFL great. He compromised his convictions in order to try and save a few bucks. Guys like that deserve to get screwed. When I say 'screw the owners', I mean ALL the owners. Rooney, Mara, Hunt, Adams, Bowlen, Jones, Snyder. All of 'em.

Now you say it is ONLY Jerry Jones' (and I will use "Jerry Jones" as a synonym for the "big market owners" that are 'growing into maybe a third' of the league) that wanted out of the last CBA. That's patently false. The Bengals and the Bills wanted out just as bad. They never wanted in, but capitulated. Now the reasons the Bengals and the Bills wanted out and Jerry Jones wanted out may be different, but the fact of the matter remains it was a heavily pro-player deal and it was bound to end.

This is simply untrue. Brown and Wilson voted 'nay' during the 2006 CBA because they didn't understand (trust would likely have been a better term to use) the revenue sharing plan cobbled together by Jones, Kraft and Mara at the last second. Their 'nay' votes on the 2006 CBA had nothing to do with the deal being "pro-player" and everything to do with knowing their fellow owners and understanding there was no way the revenue sharing plan, as written, was going to work.

The danger here is that the litigation strategy that is currently being employed by the PLAYERS (who, by their own admission, do not want what they are asking for, but are using as leverage) IS somewhat close to what the Jerry Joneses want. No salary cap and no salary floor and no revenue sharing would suit JJ just fine. If he can find a way to work a draft into it, he'd probably be ok without a union and a CBA. Even if he can't, he's probably alright with it (and roadkill would be too). So you have a litigation strategy being employed by the players to gain leverage whose end result may be MORE appealing to a small, but growing conglomerate of the owners. That doesn't sound like a ton of leverage...and it certainly is a dangerous game to play. You're playing chicken with a group who - at least a small fraction of - is HOPING for the crash. Some here have opined that the owners need a union and a CBA more than the players. I'd argue that that isn't the case. I'd say the small-mid market owners and your 80% journeymen players all want a union and a CBA. The big market owners and the superstar players....they'll be content...maybe even happier, without one. So if you want to say, screw Jerry Jones, I might join you in an 'amen', but to pin this whole thing on the owners without looking at the dangerous course set in motion by D. Smith that may play right into the devil's hands, you're not looking deeply enough. Hopefully, this all becomes moot. As I've said before, THIS is the time for a deal. The owners and players are on approximately equal ground. There are potential 'downsides' to both for dragging things out (in addition to the season, a potential ruling against the players in the 8th circuit and outstanding claims against the owners on the TV deal). This is the best time to make a deal and one that the Jerry Joneses will be forced to come to terms with. If either side gains too much leverage, the other side digs in their heels and we get closer to the NFL that only Jerry Joneses want.

There's really nothing 'dangerous' about this. These guys are diabolically greedy. This is exactly what they had planned. There was no question revenue sharing was dead. The owners simply weren't going to be able to get the 'Jerry Jones' of the league to continue participating in it. I wouldn't be surprised if behind closed doors threats of further anti-trust lawsuits were made. The alternative, no doubt laid out by those seeking to maximize their profits, was to get the other owners behind them in an attempt to ransom the league back to the players in return for more money or allow the league to face the players anti-trust charges and go to a free market system. Why do you find it so unbelievable that this isn't EXACTLY WHAT THE GREEDY OWNERS WANTED? As you point out, regardless of which way it turns out, the rich win. Doesn't that sound exactly like real life? From the small market perspective, at least it gives them a glimmer of hope they'll be able to recoup some profit by reducing player costs. If the small market owners didn't opt out of the CBA and they couldn't force the 'Jerry Jones' of the league to subsidize them, where else would they get the money? This was really their only alternative.Screw the owners!J

Like I said before. I'm 100 percent the other way. And if it was possible to be more than that, I would be. Like Gordon Gekko said in Wall Street.... "greed is good". Employees do NOT deserve as big a piece of the pie as they've been getting. Time for them to take paycut (hopefully).

 

[Idiot Boxer]

 

[T J]

I know. My position is extreme and it's a little out there, but I am in fact so firmly in the owner's court on this that the players and their tactics just really tick me off.

 

[cobalt_27]

Yup. Can't really engage in a good discussion with someone is so flagrantly delusional.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I agree with IB.

 

[T J]

Yup. Can't really engage in a good discussion with someone is so flagrantly delusional.

Sorry for firmly taking a side. So many things I want to say in reponse to your post, but I'll stand pat. Carry on.

 

[cobalt_27]

Yup. Can't really engage in a good discussion with someone is so flagrantly delusional.

Sorry for firmly taking a side. So many things I want to say in reponse to your post, but I'll stand pat. Carry on.

I think everyone's agreeing that sledgecitysteeldude is the crazy one, not you.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

The emoticons were for steelcity...but if you are the exact other side of his coin, TJ, I'll save a little of the for you. Pick a side, sure...but there are no innocents here.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

My favorite part was comparing the Rooneys to OJ

 

[Rockchild]

Like I said before. I'm 100 percent the other way. And if it was possible to be more than that, I would be. Like Gordon Gekko said in Wall Street.... "greed is good". Employees do NOT deserve as big a piece of the pie as they've been getting. Time for them to take paycut (hopefully).

Why is greed only good for the owners? And no one 'deserves' anything, they only get what is negotiated.

 

[fatness]

No...you aren't rational. Keeping things the way they were REQUIRES a CBA. THe owners had every right to opt out

I see what you did there.