This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
And owners have groaned already that they shouldn't have relied on the illegal TV deal to try to get them through a lockout. Guess what; not all the owners and not all the players are of the same mind.In any case, the main catalyst of events is owners wanting players to have a smaller share of total revenues, and the main catalyst of that is wide disparity among ownership in capital investment and revenue capabilities.
Cobalt, despite your personal M.O. it's generally expected that the person making the assertions is responsible for coming up with the evidence to support those assertions.
The owners asserted that they needed more money, despite the fact that salaries had not changed as a percentage of expenses and all available information suggested that the NFL is awash in cash. In spite of that, the owners were completely unwilling to provide any evidence to support their claim on an extra billion dollars.
And that refusal had as context:
-- the owners opted out of the existing CBA early
What do you mean by "early"? Wasn't it agreed upon that each party could opt out in 2008? What's the complaint here? Did the owners do something wrong?
-- the owners hired the labor lawyer who'd overseen the NHL's lost year
What's the relevance here? Prior to the lockout, the NHL players were getting something like 76% of revenues, and the teams were just getting creamed. Teams were going through bankruptcy and losing money. I know this likely brings a smile to your face thinking of these evil suits getting their just due, but...for most of us, the whole thing just lacked any common sense. After rounds and rounds of negotiations, the league offered the players a $45 million cap, which they rejected, before the season was called off. After a year went by, the players finally settled. For less than they would have gotten to begin with. They agreed to a $39 million cap in the first year after they lost a year because they wouldn't take the $45m cap. Brilliant. I am completely unbothered by who represented the NHL, as the players were even more obtuse and in the wrong in the NHL negotiations than I think the NFLPA is in this current dispute.
-- the owners negotiated a TV deal which cheated the players out of many millions of dollars - specifically to facilitate a lockout
Yes, this was shady. Appropriately adjudicated.
-- the only time the owners have ever budged was when the courts made it necessary
Untrue. I mean, that's just a patently false statement. The number of concessions and budging are far too great to discuss in this thread, but it's such a ludicrous statement, it's not really worth addressing further.
And those thing were all true prior to Gene Upshaw dying. D. Smith was brought in afterward.
In addition, if the CBA had expired before the players union decertified they would have been locked out and had no recourse to the courts. To not decertify would have been unconditional surrender - a lesson the players learned in 1987.
Technically, the CBA already expired, no? They extended negotiations. The owners made concessions to the players, were prepared to extend negotiations again, and then the players decertified.
As far as the argument that the decertification is a "sham"... no, it's a negotiating tactic. And one that's entirely legal. No group can be FORCED to continue as union. Unions are entirely voluntary and something that's used only as long as it's in the party's best interest. In this case it was no longer in the players interest.
It's a sham. You and I both know they held this as a legal option, and that's fine. It's ultimately inconsequential. It's pretty stupid, actually. But, they'll reform as a union again when, like the NHL players, they screw themselves over and get forced to agree to a worse deal than they had the opportunity to take a month ago (or could have negotiated this month).
The players would prefer to maintain a CBA. As you point out the vast majority of the players will be better off under a CBA than they will without one. Since the NFLPA Executive Committee was democratically elected the union pursued that as its goal.
Well, with the current litigation, they are heading down a road without one. Good luck to them with that!
And in light of all that information, I've made a judgment that the owners are trying to strong arm a billion dollars out of the players simply because they believe they can. And that the players are more deserving of my support.
If I thought money grew on trees, I'd probably agree with you on all of this, too. Instead, I choose to support the guys who actually own their businesses to know what is required to run the business--not the employees, and certainly not the outside lawyers.
No more or less then desertification being wrong. Perfectly within their options/rights.
Problem is, they're still a union. I'll be interested to see if this decertification even holds up in court or if the courts eventually recognize how bogus this is.
No problem at all. They then become a trade association. Its perfectly within their rights/options to decertify. Even if later the NFL players make another union. Even if the pretense is that they will, in fact, become a union again.And again, if the owners hadn't opted out (as was their right) the desertification wouldn't have happened (as was their right).
Well, they already are masquerading as a "trade association," so that's a moot point. Whatever the case, you're not getting any argument out of me as to what were their rights, as afforded by law. Of course they're afforded the right to decertify. But, let's not fool ourselves...they're still a union.And, the bottom line is the owners are not going to settle on the 2006 deal. That's done and gone. No matter how much the players fight this in court or negotiations, they're going to be getting a smaller cut than the last deal they agreed to. The route they've chosen, though, is pretty risky, and I don't think the lower level players fully understand how much their livelihood is in jeopardy by the tactic De Smith and Jeffrey Kessler have decided to take. If Kessler had his way, the salary cap would be gone...and, those $500k/year guys are going to be making a fraction of what they make now. Meanwhile, Brady will still be able to headline whatever lawsuit he wants while building 22,000 sq ft mansions off the California coastline.
What's the evidence for this?
And THAT is why we are, where we are.Very succinct.
That's out of context. He didn't say they weren't going to settle at all.
Well of course they will settle someday. As will the players.I'm simply talking about why we are currently locked out. Which is very much the context.
We are currently locked out because the owners are not going to settle on the terms the players want, and the players are not going to settle on the terms the owners want. It takes both sides to settle. We can argue about which side is being more or less reasonable; but the fact that the owners won't settle on the terms that have been offered to them so far means nothing. Neither have the players.
Agreed, and yet again we had a deal in place for the next two seasons and the negotiations could have continued on in earnest.But that isn't the case, currently.
I am getting a little tired hearing that the owners cancelled the CBA. They opted out of a deal that was already extended 5 times.'BigSteelThrill said:
So basically we are just playing with sematics here. The deal in 2006 was for 5 years with an option to end it after 3. They could have easily made the deal a 3 year extension with the option to extend for another 2. Would fans have complained if this was the case? Would the fans have complained if the owners had not extended the first time and opted way back then to negotiate a new CBA? The owners have conceded a lot and often, and decided to end it here. Did you think they would have kept extending indefinitely? Even if the owners didn't opt out, this whole thing would have happened in two years anyway.
No more then the players.
I've seen/heard quotes by him to this effect in the past. But, look no further than the document that counts:Brady et al. v NFL
I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, or are just missing the point by so far that it's hard to imagine you're still in the room.The lawsuit is a tactic to bring the owners back to the table and get them to agree to a CBA that is closer to the existing CBA than they have been willing to agree to up to this point. The players are almost certainly 100% legally correct in their lawsuit, but that doesn't mean they want to win it and come to an NFL without a CBA.
I hope you're right. I'm not sure if everyone takes this attack on the salary cap and the draft as lightly as you do.
I guess the owners should have thought of this before opting out. Maybe they're the ones that will think of the old CBA as not such a bad deal.
Seriously, I think that there is a lot of propaganda from both sides. The players had two options-take what the owners were offering because they really had no leverage here or decertify and use litigation to get a better deal. It may lead to a league with no CBA but there's no evidence that this would be unsuccessful.
The complaint isn't evidence that Kessler or anyone else wants to abolish the salary cap, because the complaint would say the same thing whether or not Kessler or anyone else wants to abolish the salary cap.The point of the complaint is that the owners can't collude with each other to set their own terms without the cooperation of the players. If the owners want a salary cap, the players have to agree to it. The players are willing to agree to it, but only if the owners don't bogart an extra billion dollars off the top.
This all sounds great, but...there is no union.
(For the benefit of CalBear, this is me intentionally being obtuse.)
My guess is not much, right? I'm pretty sure they don't like the draft in theory or in practice. But, so long as there's agreement to divert monies saved from the rookie pool into the veteran pool, I think most players would support that (as would owners and fans).The big sticking point likely would be when is a rookie's first crack at free agency, since that's when they would be able to make their first big splash in terms of contracts. I also think with a rookie wage scale, we'll see a lot more holdouts after Years 1 and 2. I like the idea of a wage scale somewhat in theory, but I think in practice it may cause more headaches.
I think Florio has completely missed the point of the lawsuit. The players are just communicating to the owners what the NFL in 2011 needs to look like if the owners don't agree to a new CBA. The players don't really want life without a CBA. It only benefits a select few. It's a leverage play that will backfire.
See, this is what I don't understand. A few folks in here have intimated that the owners are holding a gun to the players' heads and saying, look, agree to this plan or we'll shoot. I don't think that's actually the case, but let's stipulate it is for a second. Isn't what the players are doing here the same thing? Agree to our demands or we'll shoot you with this lawsuit and an outcome that NOBODY wants. We're putting into place a lawsuit that will damage the NFL--it'll hurt us, it'll hurt the owners, it'll hurt the fans. So, you owners, you better give us what we want or else.I know we've gone through the merry-go-round here in this thread about what came first the chicken or the egg--did the owners or players cause this to happen. I think both are stubbornly sticking to their guns. But, at the end of the day, can we all agree that the players' strategy here is pretty-much holding a gun to the owners' heads and saying the same thing...give us the same deal as we had before or else?
That's not what I said.
Owners: We need to give you guys a pay cut.Players: Why?
Cobalt, I'm not sure how else to read this except that you think the owners know best and if they say it's good for the business you believe them. Especially in light of the fact that the owners have to date provided no unrefuted evidence that what they're saying is true.
Thats the way it sounds to me..The players are looking for the profits specifically, not the cost of doing buisness. Expenses are easily justified with receipts and contracts. Has absolutely nothing to do with the players needing or dictating "what is required to run the business"...
wdcrob, just because they're "owners" doesn't cut it for me. But, the fact that they have an obligation to keep their respective teams profitable and have a bit more expertise than any of us--including the players--I give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not that they are owners by title that gives them my support. But, as the ones who are ultimately responsible for the health of their respective franchises and have their hands in all of the management of what comes in and goes out, I think theirs concerns are warranted.And, I certainly have no problem with the players having a stake in understanding the big picture of what's happening, including financial records. They've been offered (and I think received) independently audited records. But, to provide sensitive, detailed, team-by-team minutia, is ridiculous. This is, and should remain, proprietary information. There are a lot of reasons to keep this information protected that are unrelated to negotiations with the players. If you don't understand or respect that, I don't think there's much I can do to explain that to you.
I don't think anything more is needed. It's why we call them owners. And, they aren't giving them a paycut like the players want everyone to believe. They just aren't giving them as big of a raise. You might believe they are the same but there a lot of people in this country who know (and found out) differently.I know it might be a shock but this has actually happened over the last few years in many other businesses.
The players were fine with the current CBA, is was the owners, not the players that opted out. So it wasn't about getting a raise, it's about getting a pay cut..
The salary cap in 2009 was $127m. The owners' offer to the players before they walked away was a package, if I'm not mistaken, that raised the salary cap to $141m in 2011 and increased to $161m by 2014. This was in addition to numerous other concessions in regard to health plans, practice limitations, among other things the players wanted. I think there is a legitimate beef the players would have that, under the terms of the previous CBA they had the potential to earn more than the $141-161 range based on what revenues were generated. In effect, it's possible that their potential earning power would be reduced. But, to call the owner's last offer a "pay cut" is a bit disingenuous.
If those numbers are accurate, then it gives me renewed hope that this dispute can be settled soon since it's not a terribly gaping chasm that has to be bridged.To give something, however, the players will want concessions elsewhere. The complication to settlement may still lie with the rookie salary cap and, possibly, the structure of the draft in general. For a group which probably recognizes the benefits of a salary cap to its membership, the draft may represent the last frontier of freedom for them to win.
I don't see why the draft or rookie wage scale would be a sticking point. Neither affects current players at all and they are the ones making the decision. The owners will likely concede FA to 4 year players and shorter initial contracts.
I've been mulling over something the last few days in regards to free agency. What would happen if the league 'gave' the players free agency with no qualification of years in the league, no franchise tags, nothing holding the players to any team. For this, the players concede the money off the top the owners want but retain the same salary cap formula. I know it sounds crazy but would it really be that bad? The discussion here and something I saw watching Ken Burns Baseball where Marvin Miller chuckled, when the players won their court case for free agency, and he 'suggested' to the owners that they would agree to certain years of service requirements to free agency to help keep salaries down. His thinking was that he didn't want to flood the market with too many players at any one time to create a bidding situation between teams. Would it work in football?'Hoosier16 said:
Indeed, it's not a sticking point between the owners and the NFLPA. But the wild card in the equation is the future players who will be affected without a voice. Their legal weight, as in other unions, may be shaky but they may be able to raise a powerful stink in the courts should they wish to do so.'Hoosier16 said:
Plan A was to keep playing under the former CBA.Plan B was to negotiate a new CBA after the owners opted out of the last one.Plan C was to decertify, file an antitrust action, and allow the players' counsel to negotiate a new CBA (which would involve re-certifying the NFLPA).Plan D is to get a ruling on a request for preliminary injunction barring the lockout, and then negotiate a new CBA.Plan E is to get a judgment on the players' antitrust causes of action, and then negotiate a new CBA.Plan F is to get a ruling on appeal, and then negotiate a new CBA.'cobalt_27 said:
I've recently had occasion to do some research on the history of interracial marriage in America; it's clear that judges are a lot more likely to do the right thing than politicians.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, nor does it appear you are interested in learning. To suggest the bolded about a federal judge is
. And no, I don't believe they are all beyond reproach but the vast majority of federal judges are qualified and honest.
To the above statement...What does that have to do with a Judge and her stance? your point makes zero sense, sorry.Also to the person saying I dont know what I'm talking about, if she wasnt some politician, why is it the media already knows what side she is leaning towards?To suggest some judges arent crooked and some are not involved in the political aspect, leaves me wondering what country your living in and if you know what your talking about.
Judges make decision based of personal and political beliefs everyday, regardless of the law. Like why does the decision even take 2 weeks, so she can go over the material, lol please. And you also prolly believe she isnt seeking counsel from Doty on this ruling too huh?
I think you're off-base on this. It should be pretty obvious from this thread that I side mostly with the owners. And, I fully expect Judge Nelson will decide in favor of the players and lift the lockout. I may disagree with her decision, but I would respect it. Judges have to incorporate their understanding of the law and circumstances surrounding the issues within the framework of their own philosophical orientation. This is not necessarily tied to political beliefs, but philosophical beliefs. And, I respect that there can be differing interpretations of the laws, how they are written, precedent, intent, etc. And, if she decides in favor of the players, I'm good with that. If the panel of judges on the Eighth Circuit side with the owners or players, I'll be good with that, too. I don't think judges are placating to any political faction/ruling in most cases. Some, sure. But, in most cases, I trust that they are making an honest interpretation based on their own set of biases. This is different than manufacturing a ruling for political gain, which is what you seem to imply their doing.
Your question was "do judges ever do the right thing?" My answer is, a lot more often than politicians do, or corporations for that matter.
I'm certainly living in a country where people who don't know the difference between your (possessive) and you're (contraction of "you are") accuse others of ignorance.
