NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

If their pay till now has been sufficient, then it will remain so...REGARDLESS of how much the NFL grows gross revenue. Folks making 6 to 8 figures have no cause to demand raises in excess of inflation.

Does that include the owners?If the business grows faster than inflation, then both the owners and the players should benefit. Revenues have increased at a pace that should satisfy everybody. Indeed, the players were satisfied. Unfortunately for the owners, their share of increased revenues may not have translated into a commensurate increase in profits, because they've failed to hold spending in check. Maybe their lavish spending on extravagant stadiums is necessary to promote the business and grow revenues, or maybe it's unnecessary and unwise. If the former, the players should be expected to help pay for it; if the latter, they shouldn't be (in which case the owners' profits will suffer due to their poor investments, while players' salaries should not suffer). To me, it looks like more of the latter, but I'm just a schmoe on a message board.

 

[Choke]

The owners made huge concessions, INCLUDING opening up the books to the players.

Did NOT happen.

 

[Steelfan7]

Players walked away from the collective bargaining table. I'm with the owners on this one. And Drew Brees and other players, just shut up and let litigation take its course.

 

[Jason Wood]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I think this was doomed as soon as gene Upshaw passed and the NFLPA hired a lawyer to lead the Union. Lawyers do 1 thing, sue. to me enemy #1 is Dee Smith

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think this was doomed as soon as gene Upshaw passed and the NFLPA hired a lawyer to lead the Union. Lawyers do 1 thing, sue. to me enemy #1 is Dee Smith

Interesting. Why doesn't Jump Street start more than two years ago when the owners started planning for a lockout? How come it doesn't start more than two years ago when the owners hired the NHL lawyer that oversaw the NHL shutdown/lockout? Why doesn't it start more than two years ago when the NFL negotiated a $4 billion clause in their TV contracts specifically so they could lock the players out (and accepted less money overall to do so)?Considering all those things happened before D. Smith was elected to lead the NFLPA, why exactly does Jump Street start with him?

Why doesn't it start somewhere around May, 2008 before Upshaw even died. From May 21, 2008:

Before the start of another National Football League season, the fields are green, the players healthy, and playoff hopes high. But beneath that veneer, a labor war may be brewing. Team owners are reported to be considering opting out of the current collective bargaining agreement with the players union.

The possibility became more distinct when the league hired L. Robert Batterman of Proskauer Rose. Batterman is well known in labor circles for his National Hockey League work. It was Batterman who presided over the NHL labor negotiations that scuttled the league's 2004-05 season, making it the first North American pro sports league to lose a full year to labor strife.

"Batterman bullied [the union] into submission," says one sports labor lawyer who requested anonymity. "If one accepts the conspiracy theory of collective bargaining, this means the NFL must be looking for trouble," says another.

The sticking point in NFL labor talks is the salary cap, which entitles players to 60 percent of league revenues and requires revenue sharing among the teams. But if owners opt out of the current deal, the cap will expire in 2010, and former NFL mainstays like Lamar Hunt and Wellington Mara have died and been replaced by a new generation of owners. The new owners, who don't feel quite so generous toward the players and aren't as keen on sharing revenues with smaller markets, have until November of this year to opt out.

No official negotiations have been held. But the hiring of Batterman sent a clear signal to the union. Gene Upshaw, president of the NFL Players Association, told SportsBusiness Journal in April that his "concerns were heightened" when he heard Batterman had been retained, noting that NHL players crumbled before Batterman's hard line.

The NFLPA's outside counsel, James Quinn of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, says that owners "have this bizarre notion that they want to get tough, so they go get Bob Batterman." (Jeffrey Kessler of Dewey & LeBoeuf is also counsel to the NFLPA.)

Again, people either don't know the facts or are ignoring them to support their own positions.ETA to add the link: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/05/smashmouth----p.html

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And if you were the players, voting for a new NFLPA head after Upshaw died, and you heard the owners talking tough, saw that they'd hired Batterman, maybe seen a draft of the contract the NFL was negotiating with the networks what would you do? Would you hire your next NFLPA head who was a good guy that Bicycle Seat Sniffers would approve of? Or would you hire the toughest SOB you could find so you didn't end up like the NHL Players?

 

[Orange Crush]

It should be noted that the owners wanted the CBA to expire so that they could get out from under Judge Doty's jurisdiction.

The players believed (whether rightly or wrongly I don't know) that the owners were trying to stretch out negotiations each expiration day in the hopes that the players would miss their deadline to decertify. It's why a player broke into the negotiations that first day to call an end to it, and why the players demanded the owners stop jerking them around if they wanted another extension last Friday.

I think the final offer by the owners was a lot better than the owners wanted to give, and, in their minds, they think the players are stupid for not taking it.

I also think the players are going to gain the advantage in court, and thus have even greater leverage in making the next CBA. Thus the eventual deal will be even better for the players than that final offer by the owners.

 

[Orange Crush]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

Why?

 

[zed2283]

Disclaimer that I'm always on the side of the owners... The players came off looking really bad, and they should have. They obviously had no intention of bargaining, and planned to decertify from the beginning. If Judge Doty had any shred of integrity, he would rule the decertification as the obvious sham that it is.

 

[snellman]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I think this was doomed as soon as gene Upshaw passed and the NFLPA hired a lawyer to lead the Union. Lawyers do 1 thing, sue. to me enemy #1 is Dee Smith

I have to agree with you on this. I, like most people, don't know the whole story, but it seems to me like Smith is more concerned with making a name for himself and being a celebrity that getting a deal done. He seems to like his face in front of the camera and loves to play the "poor us." line. I don't feel sorry for the players or the owners, they both are making very good money thanks to us the public.

 

[Orange Crush]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

The numbers I've seen show a slight decrease in the players share of the pie.http://blogs.forbes....ifferent-ideas/

What's the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... " ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. "Total Revenue" is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit.

...

The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

Players' Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players' Percentage of "Total Revenue" since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

2009–57.1%

The NFL revenues have grown at a much greater rate than inflation. The player salaries have gone up with the revenue but it's not likely that the non-player expenses for the owners have increased as rapidly as their income. Their profits should be better than ever.

That.....makes no sense. Unless I've completely misunderstood the last arrangement. WEren't the players given a specific % of gross revenue after the billion dollar operating credit? If gross incomes increased but the credit remained the same...player take would rise as a percentage of gross income. THAT's the argument the NFL owners have made, and such a model is untenable long-term.

No, as I said in my last post, the amount of the top wasn't a set percentage. It actually grew over the term of the last CBA. Also, the revenue split with the players determines the level of the salary cap, i.e. the maximum amount teams can spend on players. There's some variation there, as not all teams spend to the cap. The above numbers are an independent auditor's calculation of exactly what percentage of revenue actually went to the players.

If these numbers are accurate, wouldn't it make sense to simply agree to a number based on total revenue that's historically similar? IE: Approx. 50% of gross revenue (before MOST expenses except for maybe some very limited and clearly defined expenses such as team travel costs....office and coaching salaries, stadium renovations, etc. not included) would ensure the players receive compensation very much in line with historical figures, provided 1 to 1.5% was dedicated to other player costs such as long term health care, etc.While I understand players fighting to keep salaries and other compensation from going backwards, I still take issue with the belief that ANY raises in excess of inflation are a God-given right. IE: Any proposal which grows the salary cap (and floor) by inflation rates or more should preclude union decertification. If their pay till now has been sufficient, then it will remain so...REGARDLESS of how much the NFL grows gross revenue. Folks making 6 to 8 figures have no cause to demand raises in excess of inflation.

Profit is not a dirty word. Owners sunk billions into the NFL...let them make a healthy profit.

Your first paragraph exactly describes the players first formal counter-offer. As you said, they thought it made the most sense, and allowed the owners to keep their books private and make whatever business decisions they thought best for the league without needing to justify each and every little thing to the players. The owners told them to stuff it.So does that mean you're on the players' side now?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Good interview with Art Rooney on Steelers.com on the issue. Absolutely impossible to be on the players' side on this one.

Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Good interview with Art Rooney on Steelers.com on the issue. Absolutely impossible to be on the players' side on this one. Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

ETA: According to Art Rooney.

 

[Orange Crush]

I have to admit finding the personal attacks on De Smith humorous. He has political ambitions? And you think the way to make himself popular with the American people is by ending our favorite pastime? You must think he's incredibly stupid. Yet anyone who knows anything about Smith's background knows that "stupid" is not an appropriate descriptor.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I have to admit finding the personal attacks on De Smith humorous. He has political ambitions? And you think the way to make himself popular with the American people is by ending our favorite pastime? You must think he's incredibly stupid. Yet anyone who knows anything about Smith's background knows that "stupid" is not an appropriate descriptor.

More generally... the "I hate the players crowd" has in general been damn near totally unresponsive when presented with factual information that addresses their alleged reasons why they feel the way the do.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I have to admit finding the personal attacks on De Smith humorous. He has political ambitions? And you think the way to make himself popular with the American people is by ending our favorite pastime? You must think he's incredibly stupid. Yet anyone who knows anything about Smith's background knows that "stupid" is not an appropriate descriptor.

He's a litigator. Litigators are trained to passionately represent their client's side. They don't want to find the 'middle ground' or the 'win-win'. Oftentimes, they aren't even able to see that result, they are so single-minded (I've dealt with plenty of litigators, it is a common trait). A litigator should not be in charge of a collective bargaining. When a litigator was hired, no one should have been surprised that this is where we ended up.I find D. Smith self-important and a bit of an egomaniac, but he's just doing what he was hired to do.But it is threatening to ruin the league.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I have to admit finding the personal attacks on De Smith humorous. He has political ambitions? And you think the way to make himself popular with the American people is by ending our favorite pastime? You must think he's incredibly stupid. Yet anyone who knows anything about Smith's background knows that "stupid" is not an appropriate descriptor.

He's a litigator. Litigators are trained to passionately represent their client's side. They don't want to find the 'middle ground' or the 'win-win'. Oftentimes, they aren't even able to see that result, they are so single-minded (I've dealt with plenty of litigators, it is a common trait). A litigator should not be in charge of a collective bargaining. When a litigator was hired, no one should have been surprised that this is where we ended up.I find D. Smith self-important and a bit of an egomaniac, but he's just doing what he was hired to do.

But it is threatening to ruin the league.

Smith's hiring was well after the NFL had made its intentions clear.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Good interview with Art Rooney on Steelers.com on the issue. Absolutely impossible to be on the players' side on this one. Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

ETA: According to Art Rooney.

I trust the Rooney's take pretty much. They haven't been lock-step with Goodell or the ownership group. Dan Rooney came out and said that they should get rid of the 18 game schedule demand. He's been a proponent of resolving this all along.What I find laughable is the marketing put out by the player's union...the whole 'let them play' campaign like the players are just the poor ol' Bad News Bears is ridiculous. It underestimates the fan's intelligence. If ALL they wanted was to play, there was a deal on the table. I also take issue with the argument that the NFL could just sell off the Thursday night games. That's exactly the problem with with total transparency. It would open the door to the players questioning why the owner's aren't "maximizing income." The NFL decided that they want to build a network and enhance their brand. It isn't paying immediate dividends, but they feel like it is a good move for the NFL in the long run. Open the books, and all of the sudden the players start substituting their own business judgment for that of the owners. They aren't 'partners' in this business. They're employees. They shouldn't have the ability to question whether and how they develop, grow and brand their business.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I have to admit finding the personal attacks on De Smith humorous. He has political ambitions? And you think the way to make himself popular with the American people is by ending our favorite pastime? You must think he's incredibly stupid. Yet anyone who knows anything about Smith's background knows that "stupid" is not an appropriate descriptor.

He's a litigator. Litigators are trained to passionately represent their client's side. They don't want to find the 'middle ground' or the 'win-win'. Oftentimes, they aren't even able to see that result, they are so single-minded (I've dealt with plenty of litigators, it is a common trait). A litigator should not be in charge of a collective bargaining. When a litigator was hired, no one should have been surprised that this is where we ended up.I find D. Smith self-important and a bit of an egomaniac, but he's just doing what he was hired to do.

But it is threatening to ruin the league.

Smith's hiring was well after the NFL had made its intentions clear.

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I also take issue with the argument that the NFL could just sell off the Thursday night games. That's exactly the problem with with total transparency. It would open the door to the players questioning why the owner's aren't "maximizing income." The NFL decided that they want to build a network and enhance their brand. It isn't paying immediate dividends, but they feel like it is a good move for the NFL in the long run. Open the books, and all of the sudden the players start substituting their own business judgment for that of the owners.

Actually the players submitted an offer that would allow the owners to keep the books shut. It locked in their share of total revenue at 50% of the total revenue (which is what the owners said their deal would do). The owners walked out.

They aren't 'partners' in this business. They're employees. They shouldn't have the ability to question whether and how they develop, grow and brand their business.

I realize you have a strong opinion about this. However the law says you are wrong.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I also take issue with the argument that the NFL could just sell off the Thursday night games. That's exactly the problem with with total transparency. It would open the door to the players questioning why the owner's aren't "maximizing income." The NFL decided that they want to build a network and enhance their brand. It isn't paying immediate dividends, but they feel like it is a good move for the NFL in the long run. Open the books, and all of the sudden the players start substituting their own business judgment for that of the owners.

Actually the players submitted an offer that would allow the owners to keep the books shut. It locked in their share of total revenue at 50% of the total revenue (which is what the owners said their deal would do). The owners walked out.

They aren't 'partners' in this business. They're employees. They shouldn't have the ability to question whether and how they develop, grow and brand their business.

I realize you have a strong opinion about this. However the law says you are wrong.

Yes. Total revenue. Not total football revenue. That offer was clearly targeted to get Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder fighting with the small market owners. D. Smith knew that offer was unworkable because it would require the big market teams to pay in even more money than they do now. Either you know this and are being purposely naive or you need to read more.And No. The law doesn't say that.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

 

[Class Dismissed]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

Why is it in their best interests to have Doty oversee the case?

 

[renesauz]

Your first paragraph exactly describes the players first formal counter-offer. As you said, they thought it made the most sense, and allowed the owners to keep their books private and make whatever business decisions they thought best for the league without needing to justify each and every little thing to the players. The owners told them to stuff it.So does that mean you're on the players' side now?

Not really, because first and foremost in my mind is the belief that employees do not own a God-given right to company profits and any pay structure which offers regular collective raises in excess of inflation precludes a B*ch to strike when you're making in excess of 6 figures.The league depends on the players more than most businesses, so some sort of profit-sharing makes sense, but the structure of that "profit sharing" did not previously make sense, and it should be well within the owners purview to adjust that without expecting a full out labor war.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Yes. Total revenue. Not total football revenue. That offer was clearly targeted to get Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder fighting with the small market owners. D. Smith knew that offer was unworkable because it would require the big market teams to pay in even more money than they do now. Either you know this and are being purposely naive or you need to read more.And No. The law doesn't say that.

Actually, it does. The league doesn't like to think of it that way, but the legal requirement that everything be negotiated and agreed to in a CBA means that they are in fact partners. Your opinions notwithstanding.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And since I have the impression that you haven't actually read very much of the thread up to this point, here's some additional fact-based information about the player compensation:

What's the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... " ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. "Total Revenue" is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit....The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCooperslayers' Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:2000-56.5%2001-52.6%2002-51.8%2003-50.5%2004-52.3%2005-51.1%2006-52.7%2007-51.8%2008-51.0%2009-50.6%Players' Percentage of "Total Revenue" since 2000:2000-61.7%2001-57.1%2002-56.1%2003-54.3%2004-57.0%2005-55.1%2006-58.4%2007-58.0%2008-57.7%2009–57.1%

When the owners refused to open up the books (necessary to negotiate "Total Revenue" above), the players countered by making the 50% proposal for "All Revenue" above. As you can see that isn't more than they'd been earning.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Yes. Total revenue. Not total football revenue. That offer was clearly targeted to get Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder fighting with the small market owners. D. Smith knew that offer was unworkable because it would require the big market teams to pay in even more money than they do now. Either you know this and are being purposely naive or you need to read more.And No. The law doesn't say that.

Actually, it does. The league doesn't like to think of it that way, but the legal requirement that everything be negotiated and agreed to in a CBA means that they are in fact partners. Your opinions notwithstanding.

Your condescension is entertaining. A CBA doesn't require that 'everything be negotiated', just the terms of the employees employment. When that is interpreted to mean that the employee gets to make decisions about how the ownerships' decisions about how to operate their business, it is over-reaching. What's next? Does the players union have a say on expansion teams? Locations? Team colors? Division alignment? So your opinions notwithstanding, just because they are negotiating with regard to terms of employment it doesn't make them business partners.

 

[Orange Crush]

Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

They shouldn't use whatever tools are available to them to negotiate the best deal possible? You don't think the owners are doing the exact same thing?And, I should add, these are tools legally available to them. I'm not talking about horse's heads in Art Rooney's bed.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

And since I have the impression that you haven't actually read very much of the thread up to this point, here's some additional fact-based information about the player compensation:

What's the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... " ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. "Total Revenue" is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit....The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCooperslayers' Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:2000-56.5%2001-52.6%2002-51.8%2003-50.5%2004-52.3%2005-51.1%2006-52.7%2007-51.8%2008-51.0%2009-50.6%Players' Percentage of "Total Revenue" since 2000:2000-61.7%2001-57.1%2002-56.1%2003-54.3%2004-57.0%2005-55.1%2006-58.4%2007-58.0%2008-57.7%2009–57.1%

When the owners refused to open up the books (necessary to negotiate "Total Revenue" above), the players countered by making the 50% proposal for "All Revenue" above. As you can see that isn't more than they'd been earning.

Never said it wasn't 'less', just that it was designed to drive a wedge between big market/small market owners.We're not going to agree here. So I'm done with this particular line.

 

[CalBear]

Not really, because first and foremost in my mind is the belief that employees do not own a God-given right to company profits and any pay structure which offers regular collective raises in excess of inflation precludes a B*ch to strike when you're making in excess of 6 figures.

You keep bringing up inflation. The Consumer Price Index (which is I assume what you mean when you use that term) Is completely irrelevant to how much anyone in any specific industry should be getting paid. And the CPI itself is largely bunk, manipulated by political forces to make increases in cost of living appear smaller than they really are.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When that is interpreted to mean that the employee gets to make decisions about how the ownerships' decisions about how to operate their business, it is over-reaching. What's next? Does the players union have a say on expansion teams? Locations? Team colors? Division alignment? So your opinions notwithstanding, just because they are negotiating with regard to terms of employment it doesn't make them business partners.

Can you point to an example where the players were doing any of this? Or is this more opinion?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

They shouldn't use whatever tools are available to them to negotiate the best deal possible? You don't think the owners are doing the exact same thing?And, I should add, these are tools legally available to them. I'm not talking about horse's heads in Art Rooney's bed.

Not if a mediated solution was still available. Which I think it was. It would have required more compromise on both parties' part and it might not have ended up with the "best deal" the players could have possibly gotten, but it would be a fair deal. I've dealt with plenty of mediators and litigators. There is a disconnect when you get to litigators with respect to this very issue.Forest. Trees.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

They shouldn't use whatever tools are available to them to negotiate the best deal possible? You don't think the owners are doing the exact same thing?And, I should add, these are tools legally available to them. I'm not talking about horse's heads in Art Rooney's bed.

Not if a mediated solution was still available. Which I think it was. It would have required more compromise on both parties' part and it might not have ended up with the "best deal" the players could have possibly gotten, but it would be a fair deal. I've dealt with plenty of mediators and litigators. There is a disconnect when you get to litigators with respect to this very issue.Forest. Trees.

Long on opinion again.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

When that is interpreted to mean that the employee gets to make decisions about how the ownerships' decisions about how to operate their business, it is over-reaching. What's next? Does the players union have a say on expansion teams? Locations? Team colors? Division alignment? So your opinions notwithstanding, just because they are negotiating with regard to terms of employment it doesn't make them business partners.

Can you point to an example where the players were doing any of this? Or is this more opinion?

They're not doing this because they're not partners in the business. However, if you go 'total transparency' then the players start questioning why the NFL isn't selling the Thursday night games because that would put more money in their pockets. Then maybe the NFLPA starts trying to dictate the revenue streams that the NFL must pursue, substituting their own business judgment for the owners. And they aren't partners, they don't and should not have the ability to dictate how they NFL runs their business...only how they deal with their employees.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

They shouldn't use whatever tools are available to them to negotiate the best deal possible? You don't think the owners are doing the exact same thing?

And, I should add, these are tools legally available to them. I'm not talking about horse's heads in Art Rooney's bed.

Not if a mediated solution was still available. Which I think it was. It would have required more compromise on both parties' part and it might not have ended up with the "best deal" the players could have possibly gotten, but it would be a fair deal. I've dealt with plenty of mediators and litigators. There is a disconnect when you get to litigators with respect to this very issue.

Forest. Trees.

Long on opinion again.

I was ASKED FOR MY OPINION.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When that is interpreted to mean that the employee gets to make decisions about how the ownerships' decisions about how to operate their business, it is over-reaching. What's next? Does the players union have a say on expansion teams? Locations? Team colors? Division alignment? So your opinions notwithstanding, just because they are negotiating with regard to terms of employment it doesn't make them business partners.

Can you point to an example where the players were doing any of this? Or is this more opinion?

They're not doing this because they're not partners in the business. However, if you go 'total transparency' then the players start questioning why the NFL isn't selling the Thursday night games because that would put more money in their pockets. Then maybe the NFLPA starts trying to dictate the revenue streams that the NFL must pursue, substituting their own business judgment for the owners. And they aren't partners, they don't and should not have the ability to dictate how they NFL runs their business...only how they deal with their employees.

More hypotheticals that aren't supported by the facts.

 

[renesauz]

Your first paragraph exactly describes the players first formal counter-offer. As you said, they thought it made the most sense, and allowed the owners to keep their books private and make whatever business decisions they thought best for the league without needing to justify each and every little thing to the players. The owners told them to stuff it.So does that mean you're on the players' side now?

Not really, because first and foremost in my mind is the belief that employees do not own a God-given right to company profits and any pay structure which offers regular collective raises in excess of inflation precludes a B*ch to strike when you're making in excess of 6 figures.The league depends on the players more than most businesses, so some sort of profit-sharing makes sense, but the structure of that "profit sharing" did not previously make sense, and it should be well within the owners purview to adjust that without expecting a full out labor war.

Allow me to clarify a bit. Throughout the history of unions, union employees have collectively gained more and more rights and mor and more compensation. For the first 80 years of unions, you'd be hard-pressed to find any example of a CBA that didn't grant labor more power or compensation, in ANY field. Logically, at some point, that had to stop. In the last couple of decades, business has started to push back a litte bit, with limited success. Despite the (ill)logic of the original system, big business has been villified for it.The same thing is happening in the NFL. Now...I certainly don't agree with everything the owners have done. They are hardly innocents worthy of compassion. Several moves they've made along this path deserve scrutiny. The players have some legit issues that deserve resolution. But I still have a deep-rooted issue with the power granted to Unions in general. I have a strong philosophical objection to the notion that the players have a RIGHT to the compensation they're demanding, and the power that they have to try to force that compensation.Anti-trust laws were never designed for scenarios like this. It's almost assinine that we continue to apply those laws to sports labor.

 

[Orange Crush]

Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

They shouldn't use whatever tools are available to them to negotiate the best deal possible? You don't think the owners are doing the exact same thing?And, I should add, these are tools legally available to them. I'm not talking about horse's heads in Art Rooney's bed.

Not if a mediated solution was still available. Which I think it was. It would have required more compromise on both parties' part and it might not have ended up with the "best deal" the players could have possibly gotten, but it would be a fair deal. I've dealt with plenty of mediators and litigators. There is a disconnect when you get to litigators with respect to this very issue.Forest. Trees.

You may be correct here. I think only time will tell (or access to a lot more information) if the final owners' offer was indeed "fair." But reading about the players' viewpoint of things, it is clear that they let the negotiations get personal and so their emotions acted as an obstacle to getting a deal done. As I said above, that may well end up to their benefit, as I suspect they will get an even better deal after all the litigation has progressed to a certain point within the courts. But at what cost 'tween now and then?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sure, the players might get a better deal going the litigation route, but they shouldn't.

They shouldn't use whatever tools are available to them to negotiate the best deal possible? You don't think the owners are doing the exact same thing?

And, I should add, these are tools legally available to them. I'm not talking about horse's heads in Art Rooney's bed.

Not if a mediated solution was still available. Which I think it was. It would have required more compromise on both parties' part and it might not have ended up with the "best deal" the players could have possibly gotten, but it would be a fair deal. I've dealt with plenty of mediators and litigators. There is a disconnect when you get to litigators with respect to this very issue.

Forest. Trees.

Long on opinion again.

I was ASKED FOR MY OPINION.

Fair enough. But if everyone does nothing except come in and spout there opinion, without addressing any of the facts of the case (presented in lots of detail above) it doesn't make for a very good discussion. And you're right that I'm taking my frustration about this on you. Please accept my apology.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

Why do you write "players" instead of "owners and players"?

 

[Cripster]

I have to admit finding the personal attacks on De Smith humorous. He has political ambitions? And you think the way to make himself popular with the American people is by ending our favorite pastime? You must think he's incredibly stupid. Yet anyone who knows anything about Smith's background knows that "stupid" is not an appropriate descriptor.

My initial reactions to Smith were negative. I even made posts supporting that view. Really all he is doing by going the litigation route is to try and preserve a 2011 season by preventing a lockout so the players get paid once the season starts and also trying to stop what the players think is a movement to change the playing field in the owner's favor. Its a strategy. And it may work depending on the certain owner appeal of the initial favorable rulings the players will receive in court. This is no more than him doing his job, not some blind amibition.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I don't see a reason to think that an appellate court will be less favorable to the players' position than the district court. It's pretty much a slam dunk case that, without the non-statutory labor exemption (which depends on the existence of a union), practices like the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are illegal. The players will win on those claims, though it might be a Pyrrhic victory. If those practices are good for football, and if doing away with them reduces the overall size of the pie, the players might hurt themselves through litigation half as much as they hurt the owners.As a fan, I do think that the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are good for football. I'd like to see this get resolved with a new CBA that protects those practices. But I don't blame the players for using all the leverage they have, same as I don't blame the owners for doing the same. And the players' greatest leverage involves decertification. So here we are. It's just how the process works.In a free market — where all unsigned players are free agents and there is no salary cap — players would be paid what they are worth through straightforward economic principles, as if an invisible hand were directing that outcome. No threatened strikes or lockouts needed. When the parties eschew market forces in favor of collective bargaining, there are both benefits and costs. The benefits include getting to employ anti-market elements like a salary cap, restricted free agency, and franchise tags. The costs include messy, protracted battles over the appropriate level of player salaries — determined not by a market, but by collective bargaining and mediation.Ultimately, the players get the final say on whether to use a market-based approach (enforced by the courts) or a non-market-based approach (through a union) to determine the terms of their employment. I think it is pretty clear that decertifying and using a market-based approach will give them a larger percentage of the pie than the owners are currently offering. But if they follow through, it remains to be seen whether their effort will shrink the pie and turn their larger percentage into a smaller absolute piece. Either way, it's hard to blame them for using it as a credible threat. JMHO.

 

[cobalt_27]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I don't see a reason to think that an appellate court will be less favorable to the players' position than the district court. It's pretty much a slam dunk case that, without the non-statutory labor exemption (which depends on the existence of a union), practices like the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are illegal. The players will win on those claims, though it might be a Pyrrhic victory. If those practices are good for football, and if doing away with them reduces the overall size of the pie, the players might hurt themselves through litigation half as much as they hurt the owners.As a fan, I do think that the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are good for football. I'd like to see this get resolved with a new CBA that protects those practices. But I don't blame the players for using all the leverage they have, same as I don't blame the owners for doing the same. And the players' greatest leverage involves decertification. So here we are. It's just how the process works.In a free market — where all unsigned players are free agents and there is no salary cap — players would be paid what they are worth through straightforward economic principles, as if an invisible hand were directing that outcome. No threatened strikes or lockouts needed. When the parties eschew market forces in favor of collective bargaining, there are both benefits and costs. The benefits include getting to employ anti-market elements like a salary cap, restricted free agency, and franchise tags. The costs include messy, protracted battles over the appropriate level of player salaries — determined not by a market, but by collective bargaining and mediation.Ultimately, the players get the final say on whether to use a market-based approach (enforced by the courts) or a non-market-based approach (through a union) to determine the terms of their employment. I think it is pretty clear that decertifying and using a market-based approach will give them a larger percentage of the pie than the owners are currently offering. But if they follow through, it remains to be seen whether their effort will shrink the pie and turn their larger percentage into a smaller absolute piece. Either way, it's hard to blame them for using it as a credible threat. JMHO.

Agree with all of this. I would only add that the main thing my main problem with the market-based approach is that you lose any semblance of a level playing field that I think most sports fans want. Certain markets like NY or Dallas or Chicago already have an inherent advantage over smaller market clubs. It's the reality of having 32 cities in competition with each other--some are just better off than others. But, in a salary cap system that also includes mechanisms like a draft or FA tags, it increases the degrees of freedom to allow for the smaller markets to compete. Without this system, the divide between the haves and have-nots only will increase.I also think the players, by and large, will suffer without this system. Sure, there will be the megastars who will cash in even more than they already do. But, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier players are much more likely to enjoy the advantages offered by a union/CBA than they will without it.And, again, I come back to the fans. Hey, if Dallas wins 5 of the next 10 Super Bowls because of the revenue stream it can generate and, thus, attract better free agents...hey, as a Cowboys fan, great. But, as a football fan? No way do I want that for the game.

 

[cobalt_27]

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

Why do you write "players" instead of "owners and players"?

I didn't write this, but I agree with IB here...the owners made significant movement toward the middle. Ostensibly, they were in a negotiation. But, the players terminated that process. They opted for the nuclear option, which is their right. But, it certainly is not in keeping with a model that has served both owners and players and made both very well off over the last 30 years.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I don't see a reason to think that an appellate court will be less favorable to the players' position than the district court. It's pretty much a slam dunk case that, without the non-statutory labor exemption (which depends on the existence of a union), practices like the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are illegal. The players will win on those claims, though it might be a Pyrrhic victory. If those practices are good for football, and if doing away with them reduces the overall size of the pie, the players might hurt themselves through litigation half as much as they hurt the owners.As a fan, I do think that the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are good for football. I'd like to see this get resolved with a new CBA that protects those practices. But I don't blame the players for using all the leverage they have, same as I don't blame the owners for doing the same. And the players' greatest leverage involves decertification. So here we are. It's just how the process works.In a free market — where all unsigned players are free agents and there is no salary cap — players would be paid what they are worth through straightforward economic principles, as if an invisible hand were directing that outcome. No threatened strikes or lockouts needed. When the parties eschew market forces in favor of collective bargaining, there are both benefits and costs. The benefits include getting to employ anti-market elements like a salary cap, restricted free agency, and franchise tags. The costs include messy, protracted battles over the appropriate level of player salaries — determined not by a market, but by collective bargaining and mediation.Ultimately, the players get the final say on whether to use a market-based approach (enforced by the courts) or a non-market-based approach (through a union) to determine the terms of their employment. I think it is pretty clear that decertifying and using a market-based approach will give them a larger percentage of the pie than the owners are currently offering. But if they follow through, it remains to be seen whether their effort will shrink the pie and turn their larger percentage into a smaller absolute piece. Either way, it's hard to blame them for using it as a credible threat. JMHO.

I feel pretty certain that if the players get what they want there will be about 10-12 viable teams in the league, ala baseball, and neither your team nor mine will be among them. The danger in completely opening the books is that agents will know exactly how much money is "available" per team. Instead of just "knowing" that Dallas has better financial opportunities than say Buffalo or San Diego, they will be able to exactly quantify that to every free agent or draftee. This will lead to an increasing majority of these players going to the Dallas franchises and shunning the Buffalo and San Diego franchises. Mark my words, if the players get everything they want, the agents will ruin this sport. And maybe that's just what the players want?

 

[Class Dismissed]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

Why is it in their best interests to have Doty oversee the case?

Why is it in the players interests to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Why is it in the players interests to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case?

He just ruled in favor of the players on the TV contracts. When a judge starts seeing things your way, you generally want to keep him.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Agree with all of this. I would only add that the main thing my main problem with the market-based approach is that you lose any semblance of a level playing field that I think most sports fans want. Certain markets like NY or Dallas or Chicago already have an inherent advantage over smaller market clubs. It's the reality of having 32 cities in competition with each other--some are just better off than others. But, in a salary cap system that also includes mechanisms like a draft or FA tags, it increases the degrees of freedom to allow for the smaller markets to compete. Without this system, the divide between the haves and have-nots only will increase.

Yes, I think both revenue-sharing and the salary cap are probably good for competitive balance.

I also think the players, by and large, will suffer without this system. Sure, there will be the megastars who will cash in even more than they already do. But, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier players are much more likely to enjoy the advantages offered by a union/CBA than they will without it.

Probably. Along with no salary cap, there would also be no such thing as a veteran minimum (apart from state and federal minimum wage laws).