Mr. WEO Posted December 5, 2010 Author Posted December 5, 2010 Wow. Just, wow. So then, what about that meeting between the owners and union on Friday, two days after the letter surfaced? Was it the union meeting with the owners to tell them they decided to stop meeting with them two days earlier? It was the union conceding their "ploy" backfired. Wasn't this a ploy that had worked for them before, somehow?
PromoTheRobot Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 I have never understood why the NFL really just could not draft all new players? You know the UFL has plenty of vets and why can't they just draft out of college, field a bunch of lackluster teams for a few years with scabs of UFLer's and college players. You know the owners would allow for a much better union, rookie caps, etc. Why can't this happen? Plus, I remember seeing where the NFLPA wants the owners to open up their books. I mean, really?! The UFL has what? 6 teams? There are 32 NFL teams. PTR
Doc Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 It was the union conceding their "ploy" backfired. Wasn't this a ploy that had worked for them before, somehow? Nope. The NFLPA used the start of the free agent signing period as the deadline back in 2006. That's more of a real deadline you see, since without a higher salary cap, teams would have had to cut players. But even still, it wasn't necessary to do a deal. The owners panicked into a bad deal. This arbitrary deadline during the season has no teeth and doesn't compel the owners to do anything, except maybe laugh. So it's as I said, a ploy to get the owners back to the table, which happened, and the tweet by Atallah proves it.
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 Nope. The NFLPA used the start of the free agent signing period as the deadline back in 2006. That's more of a real deadline you see, since without a higher salary cap, teams would have had to cut players. But even still, it wasn't necessary to do a deal. The owners panicked into a bad deal. This arbitrary deadline during the season has no teeth and doesn't compel the owners to do anything, except maybe laugh. So it's as I said, a ploy to get the owners back to the table, which happened, and the tweet by Atallah proves it. As Aeillo said after the memo, the owners didn't leave the table. They are willing to negotiate at any time, any place. The players walked away and then walked back. The owners just looked at each other and laughed. Since the 2006 CBA, the owners made proportionately, far more than they actually conceded to the players in paid salary. It was a period of unprecedented profit those 4 years. By not singing that deal, that may not have been the case. The price of business for the owners went up a bit but the payoff was immense.
Doc Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 As Aeillo said after the memo, the owners didn't leave the table. They are willing to negotiate at any time, any place. The players walked away and then walked back. The owners just looked at each other and laughed. Since the 2006 CBA, the owners made proportionately, far more than they actually conceded to the players in paid salary. It was a period of unprecedented profit those 4 years. By not singing that deal, that may not have been the case. The price of business for the owners went up a bit but the payoff was immense. The players didn't "walk away." Simply repeating this won't make it true. But as usual, you believe what you want. Despite the evidence saying otherwise. And sure the owners have made more money. That's not the issue. They realize they gave too much to the players and want to pay them less now. It's called greed. The players OTOH have tasted more money and don't want to give it up. That's less about greed than protecting what was once theirs. But the owners hold the cards. The problem is that if there are no games, it will hurt all of them.
RealityCheck Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5882717 What's with these guys?? It's only December and they are done negotiating? Keystone cops running that organization. The best part is they are making their members pump out talking points like "we will lose our health insurance" with images of babies being born into uncovered destitution. Your in over your head brother. You should focus on what's for breakfast tomorrow instead.
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 Your in over your head brother. You should focus on what's for breakfast tomorrow instead. I never eat breakfast bro, but thanks for the suggestion. Otherwise, I stand with the billionaires who I believe have played this to their absolute benefit at every turn. They hold all the cards at this point. You cannot convince me that a guarantee of billions in profits was something they should have placed in jeopardy in 2006.
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 (edited) The players didn't "walk away." Simply repeating this won't make it true. But as usual, you believe what you want. Despite the evidence saying otherwise. And sure the owners have made more money. That's not the issue. They realize they gave too much to the players and want to pay them less now. It's called greed. The players OTOH have tasted more money and don't want to give it up. That's less about greed than protecting what was once theirs. But the owners hold the cards. The problem is that if there are no games, it will hurt all of them. The memo declared to the players that a union deadline to agree on a CBA had passed and the the players should prepare for a lockout--all while the union is still bargaining at the table in good faith?? We are actively bargaining AND our deadline to agree has passed?? NFLPA spokesman George Atallah declined to elaborate on what effect the passing of the self-imposed deadline would have on negotiations, saying the letter was an "internal communication." NFL spokesman Greg Aiello called the union's deadline "disappointing and inexplicable, especially for fans." "We hope this does not mean the union has abandoned negotiating in favor of decertifying and litigating," he said. "We are ready to meet and negotiate anytime and anywhere. But it takes sustained effort and shared commitment to reach an agreement. One side can't do it alone. About an hour after telling the AP, "We don't comment publicly on our internal communications with players," Atallah did just that on Twitter. I'm just repeating the League's (Aiello) response. The memo became public yesterday. The league is making fun of this stupid ploy to rile up the players by their own union. Atallah initially replied with "no comment when asked about "deadline" by the press. An hour later, he crawls onto twitter to bury this mistake. It's a total mismatch. Edited December 6, 2010 by Mr. WEO
Bflojohn Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 The NFLPA has, to date, issued the notion of decertification which will allow for antitrust lawsuits (no other reason for this, IMO!). They also have yelled collusion at the top of their lungs and have been pichinmg for a fight for well over a year now. Mr. Smith even issued a "on a 1-10 scale" 14 that there would,indeed, be a lockout by NFL owners! Essentially, EVERYTHING they put "out there" for public consumption rings true to the inevitable that there will be a "work stoppage" in 2011. Bank on it, they are hard liners, and will kill the goose that laid the NFL golden egg!! I'm convinced of it....
Doc Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 I never eat breakfast bro, but thanks for the suggestion. Otherwise, I stand with the billionaires who I believe have played this to their absolute benefit at every turn. They hold all the cards at this point. You cannot convince me that a guarantee of billions in profits was something they should have placed in jeopardy in 2006. There was no jeopardy. The most recent TV contracts run from 2006-2013, and were finalized before the 2006 CBA was approved. If anything, a lockout/work stoppage, in addition to forcing the owners to payback the networks lost revenue, jeopardizes the next round of TV contracts, since the networks will likely want greater protections, and may balk at giving them that provision to pay them if there are no games in the future.
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 The NFLPA has, to date, issued the notion of decertification which will allow for antitrust lawsuits (no other reason for this, IMO!). They also have yelled collusion at the top of their lungs and have been pichinmg for a fight for well over a year now. Mr. Smith even issued a "on a 1-10 scale" 14 that there would,indeed, be a lockout by NFL owners! Essentially, EVERYTHING they put "out there" for public consumption rings true to the inevitable that there will be a "work stoppage" in 2011. Bank on it, they are hard liners, and will kill the goose that laid the NFL golden egg!! I'm convinced of it.... If they decertify and sue they don't get paid. This isn't about free agency, as was the antitrust suit against the League in the late 80's, when the union last decertified. Simply about money. The suit can't be won by the union on that basis. Only the owners can lockout. They aren't running around screaming "lockout" like the union. What if there is no CBA and there is no lockout?
Doc Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 The memo declared to the players that a union deadline to agree on a CBA had passed and the the players should prepare for a lockout--all while the union is still bargaining at the table in good faith?? We are actively bargaining AND our deadline to agree has passed?? I'm just repeating the League's (Aiello) response. The memo became public yesterday. The league is making fun of this stupid ploy to rile up the players by their own union. Atallah initially replied with "no comment when asked about "deadline" by the press. An hour later, he crawls onto twitter to bury this mistake. It's a total mismatch. Sorry but a "no comment" from Atallah doesn't prove anything. And I seriously doubt that in the hour between him saying "no comment" to tweeting "it's a deadline to prepare for a lockout" that the NFLPA was told by the owners to stick it, leading the NFLPA to come crawling back to the table. And if that did happen, why did the owners agree to have a meeting with the NFLPA on Friday? Doesn't add up. Again it was a deadline to prepare for a lockout. By saving their last 3 game checks, with the last 3 games right around the corner. That's a real deadline...for the players.
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 Sorry but a "no comment" from Atallah doesn't prove anything. And I seriously doubt that in the hour between him saying "no comment" to tweeting "it's a deadline to prepare for a lockout" that the NFLPA was told by the owners to stick it, leading the NFLPA to come crawling back to the table. And if that did happen, why did the owners agree to have a meeting with the NFLPA on Friday? Doesn't add up. Again it was a deadline to prepare for a lockout. By saving their last 3 game checks, with the last 3 games right around the corner. That's a real deadline...for the players. Smith already guaranteed them there was going to be a lockout--weeks ago. So now it's a "deadline to get ready to start saving money for a lockout"? Look, the owners met Friday likely because they were scheduled to meet Friday. When they heard Saturday that a union "internal deadline to come to an agreement on a new CBA had passed", they no doubt first said "WTF?", and then they laughed. And then they Aiello made his public response, mocking them. Then Atallah was forced to tell his union members (and a surprised public) that there really was no deadline--ignore that memo, save some money. Total amateur move. The smarter players should be very concerned with the lack of sophistication of their 2 leaders.
Doc Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Smith already guaranteed them there was going to be a lockout--weeks ago. So now it's a "deadline to get ready to start saving money for a lockout"? Look, the owners met Friday likely because they were scheduled to meet Friday. When they heard Saturday that a union "internal deadline to come to an agreement on a new CBA had passed", they no doubt first said "WTF?", and then they laughed. And then they Aiello made his public response, mocking them. Then Atallah was forced to tell his union members (and a surprised public) that there really was no deadline--ignore that memo, save some money. Total amateur move. The smarter players should be very concerned with the lack of sophistication of their 2 leaders. Look doc, you are entitled to your opinions and I've certainly enjoyed seeing you indulge yourself over the years. But in case you haven't noticed (pssst, everyone else has), you're the one who needs to find some convoluted explanation for why things are happening the way I said they would back in 2006. You did it when you vainly tried to defend the 2006 CBA as being a "good deal...until the situation changed" and you're doing it again. Instead of accepting that the "internal deadline" was what Atallah said and Aiello was unsure of, i.e. a deadline to prepare for a lockout not an end to negotiations, it's "the NFLPA walked away from the table, but the owners didn't immediately approve a CBA the NFLPA wanted within an hour's time, so they came crawling back to the table that the owners were 'likely' already sitting and laughing at." Really? But again doc, I get it. You've entrenched yourself in the "Ralph is a fool" and "the owners are smarter than the players" positions, and you have to follow them through to their demise. Well they weren't smarter last time, even though they have always held the cards. And if it seems they're "smarter" now, it's only because of the ass-whipping they received last time, which is a lesson that any dog will learn after the first time. There's really nothing more to discuss. Here we are on the precipice of a work stoppage/lockout. When just a few months you were assuring me this would never happen. Funny.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 The UFL has what? 6 teams? There are 32 NFL teams. PTR you bring up a good point, cyborg. the odds of basking in the afterglow of a world championship in my lifetime go up substantially in the event of a lockout. i say lock it down.
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 Look doc, you are entitled to your opinions and I've certainly enjoyed seeing you indulge yourself over the years. But in case you haven't noticed (pssst, everyone else has), you're the one who needs to find some convoluted explanation for why things are happening the way I said they would back in 2006. You did it when you vainly tried to defend the 2006 CBA as being a "good deal...until the situation changed" and you're doing it again. Instead of accepting that the "internal deadline" was what Atallah said and Aiello was unsure of, i.e. a deadline to prepare for a lockout not an end to negotiations, it's "the NFLPA walked away from the table, but the owners didn't immediately approve a CBA the NFLPA wanted within an hour's time, so they came crawling back to the table that the owners were 'likely' already sitting and laughing at." Really? But again doc, I get it. You've entrenched yourself in the "Ralph is a fool" and "the owners are smarter than the players" positions, and you have to follow them through to their demise. Well they weren't smarter last time, even though they have always held the cards. And if it seems they're "smarter" now, it's only because of the ass-whipping they received last time, which is a lesson that any dog will learn after the first time. There's really nothing more to discuss. Here we are on the precipice of a work stoppage/lockout. When just a few months you were assuring me this would never happen. Funny. An "ass-whipping"? By giving them a "5% pay increase" that even you, begrudgingly, finally admitted they never really got? The relationship between owners and players in the NFL is far more lopsided than in any other pro sport--no CBA has changed that. I have always agreed with the owners that they made the right moves at the right times and this is validated by the billions in profits they have made since they signed that deal. Ralph shouldn't even be in this discussion becuase he is a complete nonfactor in the workings of the league--his objection for that CBA was obviously misinformed because it was potentially a great deal for him. All CBAs need to be renewed at some point, whether becuase they naturally expire or because the owners exercise a wisely implanted bailout clause. When the CBA is up for renewal, work stoppage is always a potential outcome if the two sides disagree, as these two often do. I don't think there will be a lockout by the owners. I may be wrong, but it hasn't happened yet. If the players strike, that's a differnt story.
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Nope. The NFLPA used the start of the free agent signing period as the deadline back in 2006. That's more of a real deadline you see, since without a higher salary cap, teams would have had to cut players. But even still, it wasn't necessary to do a deal. The owners panicked into a bad deal. This arbitrary deadline during the season has no teeth and doesn't compel the owners to do anything, except maybe laugh. So it's as I said, a ploy to get the owners back to the table, which happened, and the tweet by Atallah proves it. Was not our very own RW one of only two owners against the 06 deal? And got mocked for it?
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 (edited) Was not our very own RW one of only two owners against the 06 deal? And got mocked for it? Ralph profited to the tune of over $100 million during that 4 year span--more than he had cleared during any such stretch in the history of the Bills. Luckily, his ill-informed vote didn't count. Edited December 6, 2010 by Mr. WEO
Recommended Posts