Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 my guess is a deal's done by july. there's no pressing interest to get one done at this point. owners are lined up for the long haul (much like the NHL owners were in 2004-05), and the union seems intent on playing its -- as some have pointed out here -- relatively weak hand. i wrote this a while back here, so sorry for repeating myself, De Smith started in a bad position and hasn't managed much to improve it, though he does have the players publicly on board and behind him. the big problem the NFLPA faces is it's coming off what's regarded as one of the biggest wins it enjoyed with the last contract -- a contract so bad it took only a few years for the NFL owners to realize how much they gave up. the challenge for Smith -- or anyone in his position today -- is coming out with any type of "win" in these talks, and deciding where that "win" will come from. way i see it, the NFLPA's is laying its cards on the 18-game schedule, and using that as leverage. "the owners want more regular season games to raise more money, well, what do we get out of that?" it's not a bad approach. the trouble is, the owners have the leg up on this one. unlike last time, when they were ready to sign anything at the last minute, this time they've had the advantage of three years to prepare for this one. and it certainly appears Goodell has his people in line. It was bad. On the order of "we have to pass [it] so you can see what's in it."
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 It was bad. On the order of "we have to pass [it] so you can see what's in it." They gave up very little, other than on paper. They got mcuh in return. As I said, it was convenient for them to get a deal done and for football to continue. They all saw this (well, almost all). They all knew this was a temporary measure and they would bail out early--that's why they added that opt out option. Upshaw knew they were going to bail out early. He went along with that too, because he knew his players wouldn't tolerate a work stoppage.
CosmicBills Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 The CBA expires in March. Things, therefore, "cannot remain the same", no matter what the players want. The players are under contract. The League can simply say "play ball" and the players can either play or strike. The owners don't want a lockout-they would be wise to have the players balemd for the work stoppage. But that's double speak. The players can't play until there is a CBA. The players, if given the option, would continue to play under the current CBA. The owners do not want that. The players won't be able to show up and play because the owners are going to lock them out of the team facilities until a new CBA is in place ... Don't get it twisted. The players want to keep playing. The owners don't. It's a lockout. Not a strike. No matter how the owners spin it, that's what's occurring.
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 But that's double speak. The players can't play until there is a CBA. The players, if given the option, would continue to play under the current CBA. The owners do not want that. The players won't be able to show up and play because the owners are going to lock them out of the team facilities until a new CBA is in place ... Don't get it twisted. The players want to keep playing. The owners don't. It's a lockout. Not a strike. No matter how the owners spin it, that's what's occurring. As of March, there is no "current CBA". It's over, expired, done, not renewed. I think some people don't realize that every CBA extension is for a finite time period--it is not indefinite. Even if the owners had not opted out in 2008, a new CBA would have had to renegotiated anyway. Anyway, without a CBA, the owners can make a final offer and expect the players to show up for work---or the players can strike. You couldn't be more wrong if you think the owners don't want the games to continue.
CosmicBills Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 As of March, there is no "current CBA". It's over, expired, done, not renewed. I think some people don't realize that every CBA extension is for a finite time period--it is not indefinite. Even if the owners had not opted out in 2008, a new CBA would have had to renegotiated anyway. Anyway, without a CBA, the owners can make a final offer and expect the players to show up for work---or the players can strike. You couldn't be more wrong if you think the owners don't want the games to continue. They absolutely want games to continue. But on THEIR terms. Not the players.
Delete This Account Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 They gave up very little, other than on paper. They got mcuh in return. As I said, it was convenient for them to get a deal done and for football to continue. They all saw this (well, almost all). They all knew this was a temporary measure and they would bail out early--that's why they added that opt out option. Upshaw knew they were going to bail out early. He went along with that too, because he knew his players wouldn't tolerate a work stoppage. the opt-out clause is standard in most CBA's that go beyond three years. both the nfl and nflpa have traditionally had opt-outs in the past. the nhl also had one in its last deal, and both sides agreed to extend it. i'm not familiar with baseball, but i would like to say the nba has had similar opt-out clauses. from what i recall, this was not a deal of "convenience." it was put forward to the owners that his is the best deal we can get at this moment, so let's go with it. there seemed to be a rush to judgement here, and i think the deal actually tarnished Tagliabue's reputation, because he was in such a rush to retire and ensure that his legacy wasn't tarnished by a work stoppage. the owners, those in the midst of building new palaces and the heavy loans that came with them, seemed all in favor of reaching the deal -- any deal -- so there would not be a work stoppage. the dynamics have clearly changed this time around. jw
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 They gave up very little, other than on paper. They got mcuh in return. As I said, it was convenient for them to get a deal done and for football to continue. They all saw this (well, almost all). They all knew this was a temporary measure and they would bail out early--that's why they added that opt out option. Upshaw knew they were going to bail out early. He went along with that too, because he knew his players wouldn't tolerate a work stoppage. The owners gave the players a significant raise, doc, outside of the annual increase in TV money. That's the reason they want money back. Upshaw didn't have to go along with anything. The NFLPA got pretty much what they wanted (they wanted 60% of total revenues and got 59.5%, while the owners wanted 54.5%). He took the opt-out because he saw the money they were throwing at the players, and figured it would at least be another 5 years before it was time for another CBA. And you're right that the players wouldn't have tolerated a work stoppage then, hence the reason I've been saying the owners should have played hardball then.
purple haze Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 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. The owners have yet to show their books from what Smith says. Why should he negotiate when it's not truly known how much money the owners make? That would not be intelligent. The players don't need to do a thing, actually. They don't want to change the CBA. The owners do. So let the owners put an offer on the table . Nobody wants a lockout because everyone will lose money. But the truth of it is, unless the owners are willing to put scabs on the field, they don't have as much power as you want to give them credit for. How long do you think they wan to go without making money and having millions of dollars in debt service to repay? How much money would they lose if they put scabs on the field? If the players are willing to not make money for a while they have the power. They ARE the product. The owners have stadium and other debts to repay. But power doesn't come without a willingness to sacrifice. We'll see if they are willing to call the owners bluff. But I don't see how you think Smith is so much worse than Goodell in this scenario.
dave mcbride Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 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. 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. 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. I confess that I may be interpreting your posts incorrectly, but are you actually on the owners' side? The ones driving this (Jones, Kraft, Snyder) are pricks, more or less, and they're already reaping huge profits under the current system. Do I think the players will hold? No, I don't, given past history and the interchangeability of most NFL players (plus the short careers). Still, the NFL owners are a pretty loathsome bunch, and I won't be happy to see them come out on top.
CosmicBills Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I confess that I may be interpreting your posts incorrectly, but are you actually on the owners' side? The ones driving this (Jones, Kraft, Snyder) are pricks, more or less, and they're already reaping huge profits under the current system. Do I think the players will hold? No, I don't, given past history and the interchangeability of most NFL players (plus the short careers). Still, the NFL owners are a pretty loathsome bunch, and I won't be happy to see them come out on top. It took me a bit to understand his posts as well, but I think you're right. He is on the owners' side so much so that he sees this as a strike and not what it really is, a lock out.
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 It took me a bit to understand his posts as well, but I think you're right. He is on the owners' side so much so that he sees this as a strike and not what it really is, a lock out. WEO is anti-Ralph. The fact that Ralph saw the last CBA for what it was, i.e. a POS, makes him have to side with the big market owners who crafted it. Hence the reason he needs to defend the CBA and claim "it was a good deal until the situation changed," when it was never a good deal, and became even worse after the economy tanked (which happened years after they first talked of opting-out, and months after they actually opted-out). FTR, I am on the owners' side when it comes to the CBA. But they got bent over by the players in the last round of talks.
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 the opt-out clause is standard in most CBA's that go beyond three years. both the nfl and nflpa have traditionally had opt-outs in the past. the nhl also had one in its last deal, and both sides agreed to extend it. i'm not familiar with baseball, but i would like to say the nba has had similar opt-out clauses. from what i recall, this was not a deal of "convenience." it was put forward to the owners that his is the best deal we can get at this moment, so let's go with it. there seemed to be a rush to judgement here, and i think the deal actually tarnished Tagliabue's reputation, because he was in such a rush to retire and ensure that his legacy wasn't tarnished by a work stoppage. the owners, those in the midst of building new palaces and the heavy loans that came with them, seemed all in favor of reaching the deal -- any deal -- so there would not be a work stoppage.the dynamics have clearly changed this time around. jw That's how I would define convenience. The rest pretty much sums up why they did it and why it was expeditious. The dynamics have changed--overwhelmingly in favor of the owners. Seems it has worked out to their advantage--it cost them very little actually, they made unprecedented profits during the "bad CBA" and now they are going to force a pay concession. Yeah, they don't know what they were doing.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) WEO is anti-Ralph. The fact that Ralph saw the last CBA for what it was, i.e. a POS, makes him have to side with the big market owners who crafted it. Hence the reason he needs to defend the CBA and claim "it was a good deal until the situation changed," when it was never a good deal, and became even worse after the economy tanked (which happened years after they first talked of opting-out, and months after they actually opted-out). FTR, I am on the owners' side when it comes to the CBA. But they got bent over by the players in the last round of talks. Agreed. The funny thing is, if there were a simple arbitrator, I think that person would very likely split the difference and be able to craft a deal that was pretty damn fair to both sides and great for the game, fans and league. No one wants to make a good deal here. Both sides want more than their share, and would crush the other side if given any opportunity. There is plenty of money to go around, and plenty of ways to make it equitable. Edited February 4, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Agreed. The funny thing is, if there were a simple arbitrator, I think that person would very likely split the difference and be able to craft a deal that was pretty damn fair to both sides and great for the game, fans and league. No one wants to make a good deal here. Both sides want more than their share, and would crush the other side if given any opportunity. There is plenty of money to go around, and plenty of ways to make it equitable. There was no reason for the owners to rush into a deal the way they did. They still had more time to hammer out a deal that would have been far more beneficial for them.
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 I confess that I may be interpreting your posts incorrectly, but are you actually on the owners' side? The ones driving this (Jones, Kraft, Snyder) are pricks, more or less, and they're already reaping huge profits under the current system. Do I think the players will hold? No, I don't, given past history and the interchangeability of most NFL players (plus the short careers). Still, the NFL owners are a pretty loathsome bunch, and I won't be happy to see them come out on top. Nope, you are correct. I'm on "the owner's side". So what? Those "pricks" you mention are also the ones who produce the football product (along with the owners of the Giants, Jets, Packers*, Steelers and Bears) that the networks are really paying (billions) for. It may surprise you that the networks aren't paying for the rights to broadcast Bills, Seahawks, Panthers, Titans, etc...games. They negotiated those huge contracts on behalf of guys like Ralph and they did a very nice job, you would have to agree. They make football for us--it's simple. What can I say? It took me a bit to understand his posts as well, but I think you're right. He is on the owners' side so much so that he sees this as a strike and not what it really is, a lock out. Actually it's neither yet, right? I know you knew that. WEO is anti-Ralph. The fact that Ralph saw the last CBA for what it was, i.e. a POS, makes him have to side with the big market owners who crafted it. Hence the reason he needs to defend the CBA and claim "it was a good deal until the situation changed," when it was never a good deal, and became even worse after the economy tanked (which happened years after they first talked of opting-out, and months after they actually opted-out). FTR, I am on the owners' side when it comes to the CBA. But they got bent over by the players in the last round of talks. Yes, I am siding with the guys who have made out like bandits over the course of this completely imaginary "bending over" (that's an interesting way to describe making hundreds of millions of dollars) period, just so I can get back at Ralph, who was so incredibly tuned into the CBA process that he forgot how it would provide him unprecedented extra free league welfare should his profits fall below 30 million. Maybe if you repeat the "bent over" claim enough, it will seem to be true.
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Yes, I am siding with the guys who have made out like bandits over the course of this completely imaginary "bending over" (that's an interesting way to describe making hundreds of millions of dollars) period, just so I can get back at Ralph, who was so incredibly tuned into the CBA process that he forgot how it would provide him unprecedented extra free league welfare should his profits fall below 30 million. Maybe if you repeat the "bent over" claim enough, it will seem to be true. The owners have been making out like bandits all along, right? So the situation never really did change, did it? So again, why opt-out? Heck, why not give the player 60% of total revenues? The owners would still make out like bandits. How about 61%? 64.5%? Maybe they should just increase it 5% each time? There would never be concerns about a work stoppage again!
CosmicBills Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Nope, you are correct. I'm on "the owner's side". So what? Those "pricks" you mention are also the ones who produce the football product (along with the owners of the Giants, Jets, Packers*, Steelers and Bears) that the networks are really paying (billions) for. It may surprise you that the networks aren't paying for the rights to broadcast Bills, Seahawks, Panthers, Titans, etc...games. They negotiated those huge contracts on behalf of guys like Ralph and they did a very nice job, you would have to agree. They make football for us--it's simple. What can I say? Yet, the players on the field are what makes it great. Their skill. Their lives are on the line. Their abilities. This sounds an awful like the people who supported the studios during the last writer's strike (sorry, reaching for what I know). Yes, the studios make the movies, but the writers create the content. The studios can exist without the writers, their content will just suffer. Same with the NFL. I guess you could sit there and say "The owners make the league" but do you REALLY want to see an NFL with scab players who aren't as talented on the field? Wake up.
spartacus Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 It took me a bit to understand his posts as well, but I think you're right. He is on the owners' side so much so that he sees this as a strike and not what it really is, a lock out. the only side calling for an impending "lockout" is the NFLPA and the blind sheep media. Their entire strategy relies on the league keeping the players from playing because the players do not have the solidarity or the stomach is stay away from the game for any period of time if they have to personally made the decision. Why would the owners give up this incredible piece of on-going leverage on March 4 when the players won't feel the impact of lost game checks until September.
Delete This Account Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) the only side calling for an impending "lockout" is the NFLPA and the blind sheep media. how absurd. i'm not sure if you're questioning the word "lockout" or questioning whether the nfl hasn't made plans in the event there will be no deal by March 3. either way, that's well, absurd. the players won't strike. they don't need to. they like the existing deal. ergo, the nfl is the one that would have to lock out the players in order to get a new deal. secondly, the lockout is pending because there is no deal. Their entire strategy relies on the league keeping the players from playing because the players do not have the solidarity or the stomach is stay away from the game for any period of time if they have to personally made the decision. if the players don't have the solidarity, why is it they have all but unanimously agreed to decertify if necessary? and i do know many Bills players were preparing for a lockout when i spoke to them in the weeks leading up to the end of the season. Why would the owners give up this incredible piece of on-going leverage on March 4 when the players won't feel the impact of lost game checks until September. though true, the players don't get paid until the season begins, you're wrong in saying a lockout won't have any affect. free-agents won't have the opportunity to negotiate contracts or collect the substantial bonuses that would come with them. roster bonus clauses negotiated into numerous contracts will not be paid out at the start of the new year, March 4. health insurance (and this covers the players' families as well) will be stopped. i know of one player who's daughter requires several operations, some of which will have to take place past March 4, and that will not be covered. (the player wasn't looking for sympathy, and i approached him about writing the story, but he declined because he didn't want to have his daughter thrust in the middle of this). jw (proud member of the blind sheep media) Edited February 5, 2011 by john wawrow
Beerball Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 the opt-out clause is standard in most CBA's that go beyond three years. both the nfl and nflpa have traditionally had opt-outs in the past. the nhl also had one in its last deal, and both sides agreed to extend it. i'm not familiar with baseball, but i would like to say the nba has had similar opt-out clauses. from what i recall, this was not a deal of "convenience." it was put forward to the owners that his is the best deal we can get at this moment, so let's go with it. there seemed to be a rush to judgement here, and i think the deal actually tarnished Tagliabue's reputation, because he was in such a rush to retire and ensure that his legacy wasn't tarnished by a work stoppage. the owners, those in the midst of building new palaces and the heavy loans that came with them, seemed all in favor of reaching the deal -- any deal -- so there would not be a work stoppage. the dynamics have clearly changed this time around. jw One would think that the League's COO would be more heavily involved in the nuts & bolts of the negotiated deal, not the Commish. How did things work out for that guy?
Recommended Posts