tipopticxe Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Check out this video with Antonio Cromartie and what he has to say about the current labor situation in the NFL. AC I hated the guy all season, being on the Jests. Hated him even more in the postseason for all the trash talk he was doing. But these latest comments from him, makes me like him a whole lot more. Makes a lot of sense and hoping that they will get things done before the start of next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kkspike Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 He needs all the cash he can get.child support payments are close to $35 grand a month.this is the guy who had to barrow money from the jets to pay the bills.the union most love this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafter Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 He needs all the cash he can get.child support payments are close to $35 grand a month.this is the guy who had to barrow money from the jets to pay the bills.the union most love this. This was my first thought as well. He needs to keep the money stream going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 This was my first thought as well. He needs to keep the money stream going. this mentality basically applies to all of the players which is why if the union does not cave, the league will bargain to an impasse and then impose the last proposed offer as the new rules (THERE WILL BE NO LOCKOUT) forcing the players to make the decision to strike and give up those paydays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The irony is that the escalating contracts put the players in a bigger bind and lessen their negotiating power. During the last work stoppage in '86, the stakes for the players were much lower, while the first guys to cross the line were the ones in bigger financial straights (who da thought that LT had mismanaged his finances?) My guess is that there are a lot more players in a financial bind now then there were in '86. Bigger contracts without responsible financial management means bigger bills & debts. Players cannot afford a work stoppage. OTOH, the owners will continue to receive the TV revenues and will just wait the players out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 this mentality basically applies to all of the players which is why if the union does not cave, the league will bargain to an impasse and then impose the last proposed offer as the new rules (THERE WILL BE NO LOCKOUT) forcing the players to make the decision to strike and give up those paydays I wish I could buy that. This one will get ugly and a lockout is all but assured. The question is how long it will last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogger Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 What if this is one of the guys Merriman was talking about...I would embrace the addition personally, despite his off the field crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The irony is that the escalating contracts put the players in a bigger bind and lessen their negotiating power. During the last work stoppage in '86, the stakes for the players were much lower, while the first guys to cross the line were the ones in bigger financial straights (who da thought that LT had mismanaged his finances?) My guess is that there are a lot more players in a financial bind now then there were in '86. Bigger contracts without responsible financial management means bigger bills & debts. Players cannot afford a work stoppage. OTOH, the owners will continue to receive the TV revenues and will just wait the players out. Yup. And that's what's going to happen. The owners have all the cards here. But if the NFLPA caves, it'd be doing a huge disservice to it's members. Essentially the Owners are asking their employees to take an 18% paycut despite the NFL earning record making revenues. But since the owners won't turn over their books, the NFLPA can't prove those revenues. The players will cave before the owners, but they have to put up a fight first. And the owners will let them. Which will make this whole thing drag on longer than anyone wants. It's going to get ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Yup. And that's what's going to happen. The owners have all the cards here. But if the NFLPA caves, it'd be doing a huge disservice to it's members. Essentially the Owners are asking their employees to take an 18% paycut despite the NFL earning record making revenues. But since the owners won't turn over their books, the NFLPA can't prove those revenues. The players will cave before the owners, but they have to put up a fight first. And the owners will let them. Which will make this whole thing drag on longer than anyone wants. It's going to get ugly. The proposed pay cut by owners can be negotiated to a lower number and at the end will not seem as big anyway with the introduction of a rookie cap. Players should also bargain for greater % of compensation to be guaranteed. So while the headline pay numbers may decrease, the actual pay the players will receive may stay the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The proposed pay cut by owners can be negotiated to a lower number and at the end will not seem as big anyway with the introduction of a rookie cap. Players should also bargain for greater % of compensation to be guaranteed. So while the headline pay numbers may decrease, the actual pay the players will receive may stay the same. Absolutely true. And it probably will. But the NFLPA has virtually no leverage. The only leverage they ever really have is the threat of a work stoppage -- but the Owners want to lock the players out. Taking the biggest threat away from the players. It's going to be like watching the school bully beat the snot out of a third grader ... but the only way for that third grader to make sure he doesn't get picked on again is to fight back. Meaning the players goal will be to drag this out, make it as costly as they can afford to for the owners. If they cave on March 3rd, they'll set a dangerous precedent that will cost them more in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) I wish I could buy that. This one will get ugly and a lockout is all but assured. The question is how long it will last. maybe it's symantecs, but if there is a work stoppage, it will be caused by a strike by the players. The owners will not lockout the players They have nothing to gain by pro-actively locking the players out, especially in March. The NFLPA is already not negotiating so it will make it easy to get to an impasse. The league will then impose the rules it wants and plan to conduct a season. The union's plan is to de-certify and sue for anti-trust violations. But this leaves the players on their own to conduct a strike - which is not likely to last very long or be very organized. Once the players lose a few game checks, reality will set in and picket lines will be crossed across the league. Edited January 25, 2011 by spartacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 maybe it's symantecs, but if there is a work stoppage, it will be caused by a strike by the players. The owners will not lockout the players Disagree. The owners have already said they're going to lock the players out. It'll happen on March 3rd. The only question is how long it'll last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Absolutely true. And it probably will. But the NFLPA has virtually no leverage. The only leverage they ever really have is the threat of a work stoppage -- but the Owners want to lock the players out. Taking the biggest threat away from the players. It's going to be like watching the school bully beat the snot out of a third grader ... but the only way for that third grader to make sure he doesn't get picked on again is to fight back. Meaning the players goal will be to drag this out, make it as costly as they can afford to for the owners. If they cave on March 3rd, they'll set a dangerous precedent that will cost them more in the long run. I would not be so concerned with the billionaire boys club. There will be a market correction for the players income and life will go on. I only wish that the teachers unions could be brought back to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Disagree. The owners have already said they're going to lock the players out. It'll happen on March 3rd. The only question is how long it'll last. Not so fast in simply ASSuming that the leverage situation will remain the same. Just as in the late 80s when the NFL so effectively kicked the tails of the old AFL-CIO style NFLPA leaders led by Ed Garvey that the talented tenth of smart NFL players led by Gene Upshaw were able to ride a decertification threat to the new CBA, the leverage can shift and shift back relatively quickly. The NFL is now tasting the fruit of them conspiring with old NFLPA to actual undercut the rights of the individual and to restrain free trade through mechanisms like the NFL draft, The NFL benefitted big time and taxpayers like you and me subsidized player training and development through the colleges. However, the NFL also stalled reaching agreements with individual players until they were adults. As a result once they beat the crap out of the old union leadership they created an opening for the talented tenth of players who understood all this stuff to join smart lawyers from NYC to create the new CBA, My guess is that the talented tenth of players have reached the same conclusions you have about leverage, Soon after the NFL announces its lockout and imposition of new rule, you will see the newly free agent players be presented with free market options to stay with the old NFL and its imposed rules or instead go with a new football league powered by communications (other TV networks $). I think you are simply wrong to ASSume that the NFL has all the leverage here. First, look at the ESPN videotape posted. Upfront in this piece it describes divisions not only between the players (folks with big baby mama payments like Cromartie or drug habits like Travis Henry) or the talented tenth of players like Upshaw when he was alive or men like Troy Vincent or TKO Spikes who spent their offseason taking Ivy League business classes/ It however also sited division among the owners, Some like Jerry Jones may have the capital to gang in there, Some like Ralph are not leverage much at all, Others however are family based rather than business based owners like the Rooneys or the owner groups are so highly leveraged that even with consistent TV money any disruption of cash flow from other sources will make things tough, The major advantage of the players is that they basically like a free market where owners bid for individual services and compete for the best players. The NFL owners on the other hand really depend on their being a more social compact based economic model where the team owners really cooperate more than compete. I do not think the basics have changed and the freeer market which benefits the players will rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Antonio should be an expert on labor negotiations because he has sent so many women INTO labor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Not so fast in simply ASSuming that the leverage situation will remain the same. Just as in the late 80s when the NFL so effectively kicked the tails of the old AFL-CIO style NFLPA leaders led by Ed Garvey that the talented tenth of smart NFL players led by Gene Upshaw were able to ride a decertification threat to the new CBA, the leverage can shift and shift back relatively quickly. The NFL is now tasting the fruit of them conspiring with old NFLPA to actual undercut the rights of the individual and to restrain free trade through mechanisms like the NFL draft, The NFL benefitted big time and taxpayers like you and me subsidized player training and development through the colleges. However, the NFL also stalled reaching agreements with individual players until they were adults. As a result once they beat the crap out of the old union leadership they created an opening for the talented tenth of players who understood all this stuff to join smart lawyers from NYC to create the new CBA, My guess is that the talented tenth of players have reached the same conclusions you have about leverage, Soon after the NFL announces its lockout and imposition of new rule, you will see the newly free agent players be presented with free market options to stay with the old NFL and its imposed rules or instead go with a new football league powered by communications (other TV networks $). I think you are simply wrong to ASSume that the NFL has all the leverage here. First, look at the ESPN videotape posted. Upfront in this piece it describes divisions not only between the players (folks with big baby mama payments like Cromartie or drug habits like Travis Henry) or the talented tenth of players like Upshaw when he was alive or men like Troy Vincent or TKO Spikes who spent their offseason taking Ivy League business classes/ It however also sited division among the owners, Some like Jerry Jones may have the capital to gang in there, Some like Ralph are not leverage much at all, Others however are family based rather than business based owners like the Rooneys or the owner groups are so highly leveraged that even with consistent TV money any disruption of cash flow from other sources will make things tough, The major advantage of the players is that they basically like a free market where owners bid for individual services and compete for the best players. The NFL owners on the other hand really depend on their being a more social compact based economic model where the team owners really cooperate more than compete. I do not think the basics have changed and the freeer market which benefits the players will rule. Explain to me where the players have the power in this current labor dispute. The only power they have is to strike. The Owners won't let that happen. They're going to lock them out because they know they can financially withstand a prolonged labor dispute. The players cannot. All the players want to keep things the same. They aren't asking for more. But the owners want the players to take an 18% paycut despite the fact the league is making money hands over fist. Of course, the players can't prove that because the owners refuse to turn over the books. The owners will get the TV money in 2011 whether or not there are games played which amounts to over 4 BILLION dollars. Sure, the network money will have to be paid back (with interest) once games resume. But the DirecTV money they get to keep scott free -- and that's estimated to be worth over 1 billion dollars alone. More than enough to weather the storm for even the poorest (ha!) of the owners. This was posted a few weeks ago but it's the best summation of the situation out there: Forbes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Disagree. The owners have already said they're going to lock the players out. It'll happen on March 3rd. The only question is how long it'll last. please post the cite where the owners have said on the record they will lock the players out. My guess this is just a delusion in your mind to back up your conclusions - since the owners are under a gag order and Goodell basically says nothing when he talks about the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The irony is that the escalating contracts put the players in a bigger bind and lessen their negotiating power. During the last work stoppage in '86, the stakes for the players were much lower, while the first guys to cross the line were the ones in bigger financial straights (who da thought that LT had mismanaged his finances?) My guess is that there are a lot more players in a financial bind now then there were in '86. Bigger contracts without responsible financial management means bigger bills & debts. Players cannot afford a work stoppage. OTOH, the owners will continue to receive the TV revenues and will just wait the players out. Or the players will form their own "league" and play flag football in the park. Aaron Maybin will hawk some peanuts to the fans sitting on their blankets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Thing is the players got a great deal the last time around in CBA talks back in 06. The reason was that public support was so in favor of the players because NFL players got shafted the last few times in CBA talks. They were the largest sport in the NFL and the players were paid less then hockey players in most cases. Well in 2006 they got a crazy good deal that upped the cap a ton to the point where it wasn't restrictive at all and let the owners bid up the players by crazy amounts. Suddenly the players and incoming draft choices were overpaid in terms of how much overall they were making. Sure it was the owners fault for hastily putting together a deal but they pretty much have all the cards in terms of who can afford to lose time in a lockout. In the end the players need to just accept that they are getting the shaft this time around. Just open up talks and do your best to take less of a hit. In the end the owners will likely get a rookie wage scale, a reconstituted salary cap that is actually a lot lower then what it was in 09, a limit on gauranteed money, and the players will likely just avoid a 18 game season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 please post the cite where the owners have said on the record they will lock the players out. My guess this is just a delusion in your mind to back up your conclusions - since the owners are under a gag order and Goodell basically says nothing when he talks about the CBA. That was hastily typed ... should have been the NFLPA (and every major media outlet) not the owners. The owners get 5 Billion dollars in 2010 whether or not there's a game played. 1 Billion of that, from Direct TV is theirs scott free. There's far more motivation for the owners to lock players out than ever before. It is actually good business sense. But in case you'd like to see some, these are just pulled from random: Uno Dos C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts