Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6081062 The NFL gets to cash its $4 billion in TV checks. The union gets about $7 million in damages from the league. A person familiar with Tuesday's ruling told The Associated Press that the union sought about $60 million in damages and was awarded $6.9 million. These guys need to wake up and dump Smith.
Ramius Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6081062 These guys need to wake up and dump Smith. DeMaurice Smith is going to go down as the guy who led the players to the slaughterhouse. They're going to get taken to the cleaners by the owners.
mattsox Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Godell will take Smith to the Cleaners! Guaranteed!!!!
JohnC Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6081062 These guys need to wake up and dump Smith. What do you expect from Smith? Needless to say, he and the players he represents are in a very weak bargaining position. That isn't his fault. All you can do is represent your clients to the best of your abilities, regardless of the position they are in. Do you simply want him to cave in on every point of negotiation because he doesn't have much leverage? All you can ask of him is to get the best deal he can negotiate. If the power and muscle are on the other side that isn't his fault. Edited February 2, 2011 by JohnC
Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2011 Author Posted February 2, 2011 His only tactics are frivolous lawsuits and stupid public comments. Meanwhile the league keeps talking about their willingness to negotiate. What's he got left? Decertify and strike? No way these players are going to want to bite that bullet. After what likely will be an awesome SB, America will be lusting for 2011 football and will see the players as the obstrucive force here, not the owners. I don't see anyone who could identify with these "workers" in their struggle against their employer. What do you expect from Smith? Needless to say, he and the players he represents are in a very weak bargaining position. That isn't his fault. All you can do is represent your clients to the best of your abilities, regardless of the position they are in. Do you simply want him to cave in on every point of negotiation because he doesn't have much leverage? All you can ask of him is to get the best deal he can negotiate. If the power and muscle are on the other side that isn't his fault. Agreed--when you are in defensive position, you negotiate. You don't mislead your members into thinking it's a winnable scenario. He's not negotiating at all.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 His only tactics are frivolous lawsuits and stupid public comments. Meanwhile the league keeps talking about their willingness to negotiate. What's he got left? Decertify and strike? No way these players are going to want to bite that bullet. After what likely will be an awesome SB, America will be lusting for 2011 football and will see the players as the obstrucive force here, not the owners. I don't see anyone who could identify with these "workers" in their struggle against their employer. Agreed--when you are in defensive position, you negotiate. You don't mislead your members into thinking it's a winnable scenario. He's not negotiating at all. Unfortunately, pretty much for everyone concerned, now is not at all the right time to negotiate. Now is the time to talk tough, because the owners are pricks, too, and no one in this thing is looking to make a good deal. Both sides are looking to get better than their share, if not break the other side. Smith may be in a no win situation ultimately as you say, but if he negotiated NOW he has no chance of getting the "best" deal for his clients because the owners are never going to give their best deal now. Smith has to wait for at least the final minute before the deadline before he can give in on anything. It's quite possible he's doing exactly the right thing right now. I don't expect that to continue, but the owners are not looking to make a good deal, or do what is right, which is settle this thing fairly before the deadline.
JohnC Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Meanwhile the league keeps talking about their willingness to negotiate. What's he got left? Decertify and strike? No way these players are going to want to bite that bullet. After what likely will be an awesome SB, America will be lusting for 2011 football and will see the players as the obstrucive force here, not the owners. I don't see anyone who could identify with these "workers" in their struggle against their employer. Agreed--when you are in defensive position, you negotiate. You don't mislead your members into thinking it's a winnable scenario. He's not negotiating at all. The only leverage he has against the owners is to delay the process a little and slow down the offseason money train the owners are cultivating with the advertisors, season ticket holders and corporate sponsor deals. The big boy owners such as Jerry Jones and the owners of the Giants/Jets have serious cash flow issues to keep up with their hefty stadium bond payments. I'm sure Smith has no problem with bargaining. But how much flexibility is being exhibited by the owners' negotiating reps? Posturing is part of the process, especially if you don't have many arrows in your quiver. Edited February 2, 2011 by JohnC
Vinny4sum Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Unfortunately, pretty much for everyone concerned, now is not at all the right time to negotiate. Now is the time to talk tough, because the owners are pricks, too, and no one in this thing is looking to make a good deal. Both sides are looking to get better than their share, if not break the other side. Smith may be in a no win situation ultimately as you say, but if he negotiated NOW he has no chance of getting the "best" deal for his clients because the owners are never going to give their best deal now. Smith has to wait for at least the final minute before the deadline before he can give in on anything. It's quite possible he's doing exactly the right thing right now. I don't expect that to continue, but the owners are not looking to make a good deal, or do what is right, which is settle this thing fairly before the deadline. That sounds great in theory, but when one side owns every advantage you run the risk of coming to the table late and they have reduced what they offer. The longer this takes without the appearance of negotiating by the players the more leverage the players lose. It's like a hand of poker, the owners have a very good hand and the players are hoping to draw the inside straight, but they stay in the hand despite the owners increasing the bet. In other words yes the only thing the players have right now is to posture, but I do not see that position changing as we get closer to the deadline. If that is the case you say that is when they get the best deal and I disagree. I have been through union negotiations from the employers side and we also held the cards. In the end the contract ran out was extended for 30 days 2 times and finally the union accepted a deal 15% lower than the original offer and 20% lower than the offer the company was "OK" to settle with. Sometimes working with the owners is a better move, I may be wrong, but the harsh nature of the NFLPA right now is doing them more harm than good. Honestly, they should be playing the sympathy root trying to get more funding from the league for after their careers are over. If they did that they would like like they are caring for the old timers and would have a chance to over the long term get more from the owners.
Beerball Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 What do you expect from Smith? Needless to say, he and the players he represents are in a very weak bargaining position. That isn't his fault. All you can do is represent your clients to the best of your abilities, regardless of the position they are in. Do you simply want him to cave in on every point of negotiation because he doesn't have much leverage? All you can ask of him is to get the best deal he can negotiate. If the power and muscle are on the other side that isn't his fault. If you don't have the power and muscle to match the other side, does it make sense to spend some of your already short muscle and re$ource$ that way? All you can ask of him is to get the best deal he can negotiate. Then sit down and stay at the table until it gets done. The more time that passes the weaker the union becomes (IMO). NFL careers are too short for the players to risk losing any significant time (game checks). That TV money will increase the league's emergency funds so teams are not in danger of defaulting on debt. The only leverage he has against the owners is to delay the process a little and slow down the offseason money train the owners are cultivating with the advertisors, season ticket holders and corporate sponsor deals. The big boy owners such as Jerry Jones and the owners of the Giants/Jets have serious cash flow issues to keep up with their hefty stadium bond payments. I'm sure Smith has no problem with bargaining. But how much flexibility is being exhibited by the owners' negotiating reps? Posturing is part of the process, especially if you don't have many arrows in your quiver. The NFL will make sure any payments due are made. NFL warchest
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) That sounds great in theory, but when one side owns every advantage you run the risk of coming to the table late and they have reduced what they offer. The longer this takes without the appearance of negotiating by the players the more leverage the players lose. It's like a hand of poker, the owners have a very good hand and the players are hoping to draw the inside straight, but they stay in the hand despite the owners increasing the bet. In other words yes the only thing the players have right now is to posture, but I do not see that position changing as we get closer to the deadline. If that is the case you say that is when they get the best deal and I disagree. I have been through union negotiations from the employers side and we also held the cards. In the end the contract ran out was extended for 30 days 2 times and finally the union accepted a deal 15% lower than the original offer and 20% lower than the offer the company was "OK" to settle with. Sometimes working with the owners is a better move, I may be wrong, but the harsh nature of the NFLPA right now is doing them more harm than good. Honestly, they should be playing the sympathy root trying to get more funding from the league for after their careers are over. If they did that they would like like they are caring for the old timers and would have a chance to over the long term get more from the owners. I know what you're saying and see it in other businesses. I just don't think the owners can get away with that in such a public arena and fight as this. It's a nasty business, but the owners are not going to start lowering their offer 10 or 20 or 30 days into this. If the players want to settle then and take the owners best offer before training camp starts (I'm suggesting they try to get the best deal as soon as the deadline hits), the owners are not going to start taking things away from them. Besides, I'll admit I havent followed the actually lawsuit that was just settled, but on the surface, it seems to me that the players won. There is no way they should have been able to stop the owners. And to get the judge to award them 7 million seems to me to be a win. They should have gotten nothing. If that is a "frivolous lawsuit" and posturing, it was a great move by Smith (believe me, I am not sticking up for him because I like him, or his stances, I don't). Edited February 2, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog
Keukasmallies Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 So how long can the owners endure a strike? If the NFLPA hopes to even the playing field, it has to be willing and able to exercise the ultimate tactic. All the potential side issues, e.g., will the fans stick it out?, have to be considered, but the players have to be ready to play a hard-nosed bargaining game.
JohnC Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 That sounds great in theory, but when one side owns every advantage you run the risk of coming to the table late and they have reduced what they offer. The longer this takes without the appearance of negotiating by the players the more leverage the players lose. It's like a hand of poker, the owners have a very good hand and the players are hoping to draw the inside straight, but they stay in the hand despite the owners increasing the bet. In other words yes the only thing the players have right now is to posture, but I do not see that position changing as we get closer to the deadline. If that is the case you say that is when they get the best deal and I disagree. I have been through union negotiations from the employers side and we also held the cards. In the end the contract ran out was extended for 30 days 2 times and finally the union accepted a deal 15% lower than the original offer and 20% lower than the offer the company was "OK" to settle with. Sometimes working with the owners is a better move, I may be wrong, but the harsh nature of the NFLPA right now is doing them more harm than good. Honestly, they should be playing the sympathy root trying to get more funding from the league for after their careers are over. If they did that they would like like they are caring for the old timers and would have a chance to over the long term get more from the owners. What you are basically saying is that the owners are in the position of power so the union and the players should just give in to all their demands. Everyone concedes that the players don't have much leverage. I'm sure even the union would privately acknowledge the obvious fact. But that doesn't mean that they should just lay down like puppies and allow themselves to be steamrolled. If they simply concede on all the points without trying to fight for their positon, then what happens when the next contract comes up? Do the owners simply dictate the terms to the oppostion? As another poster smartly observed it might be fruitful if the players could stretch out the proceedings a little to gain as much leverage as possible. The object of the union rep is to get the best deal possible, not the most unattainable idealistic deal they can wistfully imagine.
Beerball Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 So how long can the owners endure a strike? If the NFLPA hopes to even the playing field, it has to be willing and able to exercise the ultimate tactic. All the potential side issues, e.g., will the fans stick it out?, have to be considered, but the players have to be ready to play a hard-nosed bargaining game. Will the fans stick it out? Absolutely. Will we like it? Obviously not, but whenever things start up again the NFL will still be far and away #1. There isn't a sport that can compete with what they have to offer. (to the American public)
Vinny4sum Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 What you are basically saying is that the owners are in the position of power so the union and the players should just give in to all their demands. Everyone concedes that the players don't have much leverage. I'm sure even the union would privately acknowledge the obvious fact. But that doesn't mean that they should just lay down like puppies and allow themselves to be steamrolled. If they simply concede on all the points without trying to fight for their positon, then what happens when the next contract comes up? Do the owners simply dictate the terms to the oppostion? As another poster smartly observed it might be fruitful if the players could stretch out the proceedings a little to gain as much leverage as possible. The object of the union rep is to get the best deal possible, not the most unattainable idealistic deal they can wistfully imagine. If I gave the impression the NFLPA should lay down, I apologize not what I meant. My main point is they have to understand the current approach may be hurting them not helping. In any negotiation reading the tea leaves is the key to getting as much as you can. The players should be trying to become very active partners with the owners and right now they should be talking about what a great product they have and better communicate publicly their needs. They have put themselves in a win or lose stance with the owners and the owners are not the type of people who lose. Finally, I think the players will weaken the longer this stretches out not the owners. There is a thread here on TBD about the players that have gone bankrupt, so do you think a majority of the players are prepared for a long hold out? I do not.
Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2011 Author Posted February 2, 2011 The only leverage he has against the owners is to delay the process a little and slow down the offseason money train the owners are cultivating with the advertisors, season ticket holders and corporate sponsor deals. The big boy owners such as Jerry Jones and the owners of the Giants/Jets have serious cash flow issues to keep up with their hefty stadium bond payments. I'm sure Smith has no problem with bargaining. But how much flexibility is being exhibited by the owners' negotiating reps? Posturing is part of the process, especially if you don't have many arrows in your quiver. The longer Smith waits, the more desperate his position becomes. And his public stance is the opposite of that of the NFL/owners. He is telling America there will be a lockout for sure and to blame the owners for the impasse. I know what you're saying and see it in other businesses. I just don't think the owners can get away with that in such a public arena and fight as this. It's a nasty business, but the owners are not going to start lowering their offer 10 or 20 or 30 days into this. If the players want to settle then and take the owners best offer before training camp starts (I'm suggesting they try to get the best deal as soon as the deadline hits), the owners are not going to start taking things away from them. Besides, I'll admit I havent followed the actually lawsuit that was just settled, but on the surface, it seems to me that the players won. There is no way they should have been able to stop the owners. And to get the judge to award them 7 million seems to me to be a win. They should have gotten nothing. If that is a "frivolous lawsuit" and posturing, it was a great move by Smith (believe me, I am not sticking up for him because I like him, or his stances, I don't). It was a hopeless case. The players wanted to freeze the owner's war chest--that was their only bargaining chip, to prevent the owners from comfortably riding out a work stoppage. They got 7 million bucks--a significant chunk will likely go to the legal fees for this gambit. It is a huge defeat for the NFLPA. Work stops, the owners get payed. The players won't tolerate many missed checks. What you are basically saying is that the owners are in the position of power so the union and the players should just give in to all their demands. Everyone concedes that the players don't have much leverage. I'm sure even the union would privately acknowledge the obvious fact. But that doesn't mean that they should just lay down like puppies and allow themselves to be steamrolled. If they simply concede on all the points without trying to fight for their positon, then what happens when the next contract comes up? Do the owners simply dictate the terms to the oppostion? As another poster smartly observed it might be fruitful if the players could stretch out the proceedings a little to gain as much leverage as possible. The object of the union rep is to get the best deal possible, not the most unattainable idealistic deal they can wistfully imagine. Again, as time goes by and Smith layers on the animosity, his position becomes weaker. His only weapon now is decertification and strike. His players don't have the stomach for this. No way he can let it go until training camp. If there is no CBA by draft day, there will be no trades on that day. Also, FA is on hold until the new CBA is inked. There will be a lot of FA's putting the squeeze on the NFLPA to get a deal so they can cash in. The league will ditch the 18 game season for a player pay cut. The sooner Smith realizes this, the better. Whatever public sympathy he thinks he's getting with his antics doesn't exist. For the money they are paid, the players are expected by the fans to show up for work.
Doc Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Everyone knew this was coming. Including the players. But any money lost from games lost will have to be repaid to the networks, so it's not like the owners don't have something to lose themselves. As I've been saying, the owners blew it with the last round of talks. They should have forced the players to accept their modest pay increase or holdout, and the players weren't going to holdout. That deal would have withstood the economic downturn. Now the problem is the players have seen more money, and it's easier to go from less to more, than more to less, so they'll fight harder to keep what they have, to the detriment of all.
Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2011 Author Posted February 2, 2011 Everyone knew this was coming. Including the players. But any money lost from games lost will have to be repaid to the networks, so it's not like the owners don't have something to lose themselves. As I've been saying, the owners blew it with the last round of talks. They should have forced the players to accept their modest pay increase or holdout, and the players weren't going to holdout. That deal would have withstood the economic downturn. Now the problem is the players have seen more money, and it's easier to go from less to more, than more to less, so they'll fight harder to keep what they have, to the detriment of all. The last deal was expeditious. It was a bandaid to keep the league playing after recent record TV contracts were signed. Tags has recently said that even Upshaw knew that the owners would opt out as soon as they were able. Football needed to go on at that point--that was the consensus. A holdout or lockout was not on the table. A deal was signed, a handful of players actually saw any significant increase in salary (players didn't get a "5% raise", as you know)and guys like Ralph, despite his poorly informed ramblings, made out like he has never before--huge boatloads of profit despite fielding losing teams for the entire life of the CBA. You really think he, of all the owners, wanted a lockout back then (or ever)? Ridiculous.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 It was a hopeless case. The players wanted to freeze the owner's war chest--that was their only bargaining chip, to prevent the owners from comfortably riding out a work stoppage. They got 7 million bucks--a significant chunk will likely go to the legal fees for this gambit. It is a huge defeat for the NFLPA. Work stops, the owners get payed. The players won't tolerate many missed checks. I agree and said it was a hopeless case. What would you suggest he do about it then? Nothing?
Doc Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 The last deal was expeditious. It was a bandaid to keep the league playing after recent record TV contracts were signed. Tags has recently said that even Upshaw knew that the owners would opt out as soon as they were able. Football needed to go on at that point--that was the consensus. A holdout or lockout was not on the table. A deal was signed, a handful of players actually saw any significant increase in salary (players didn't get a "5% raise", as you know)and guys like Ralph, despite his poorly informed ramblings, made out like he has never before--huge boatloads of profit despite fielding losing teams for the entire life of the CBA. You really think he, of all the owners, wanted a lockout back then (or ever)? Ridiculous. If by "expeditious" you mean "hastily done to the point of recklessness," then yes, I agree completely. No other way can be used to describe it, when they were given just 45 minutes to read and approve the thing. The players got approximately 5% more than they previously did, doc. I gave you the numbers. More than that, I told you back in 2006 EXACTLY how this was all going to go down: from it being a bad deal (you still labor under the delusion that it was a good deal..."until the situation changed"), opting out after 2 years (you said they wouldn't opt-out), and that there would be a lockout/work stoppage (you assured me this would NEVER happen, whereas now it's almost a certainty). All you have ever given is your belief. And despite being proven wrong at every turn, you're still doing it. Yes the owners made boatloads of money. The point is, they want to make shiploads of money. Hence the reason they opted-out of that last piece of ship CBA at the earliest possible chance. If they were content just making boatloads of money, they wouldn't have opted out. It's not a hard concept to grasp...for most. Do I think the owners want/ed a lockout/work stoppage at any time? Duh, no. What I was saying is that had the owners stood firm the first time, they wouldn't have had to give up as much as they did, because the players would have eventually caved (i.e. there would have been no lockout/work stoppage). You see, they would still have gotten a pay raise, whereas now they're looking at a pay cut. And that's a situation worth fighting harder for.
MarkyMannn Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 If I understand this correctly, what was going through the minds of TV exec's who figured, "OK, NFL owners, we will give you $4 billion even if there are no games". That is messed up
Recommended Posts