CBA discussions

[Mr. WEO]

'The union’s brief includes a slide shown at the league meetings in March 2009 regarding the effort to extend the TV contracts. Said the slide: “Current structure of broadcast contracts prevent NFL from collecting payments if work stoppage in 2011.”'.

 

 

We knew the League worked a deal to get the insurance. The Special Master who ruled for the Leaugue (who is also aware of the terms of the CBA and the laws governing its enforcement) knew about this. It's not a secret, nor is the league denying they did this. They anticipated the possibility of a work stoppage in 3/11 (who didn't??) and were looking for the only type of financial insurance that existed. Smith didn't ask why the renegotiated contracts were (suspiciously??) not increased--he was too busy kissing Goodell's ass! Now he's screaming bloody murder.

 

Ebersol's words are worth as much as JJ's were. If the NFL had "lockout insurance" in previous TV contracts, they would have provided proof already. Like before Doty made his ruling.

 

Your response on this one is predictable, yet I still wanted to see if you would say it. Anyway, what would having such proof done to make a difference--the union, and the judge contend that the simple act of doing so (anytime, I presume) violates the CBA.

 

Had there not been the inclusion of the "lockout insurance," which makes it appear like the owners gave up money in exchange for their own protection, I doubt they'd have made a stink.

 

Again, Smith had only praise for the owners when he saw that the dollar amount had not changed on the value of the extra years on the renegotiated contracts. He had to know what went down and how these things work. In the event of a likely work stoppage, the owners had negotiated their ace in the hole--and he had his, the lawsuit, which he whipped out when it became necessary. Just as Upshaw knew (before the ink was dry) the 2006 CBA was a temporary measure that was not meant to reach 2012, Smith knew exactly what was going on.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[Peter]

A few quick observatons:

 

1. Judge Doty always rules in favor of the NFLPA and against the owners. At one point, I think that the owners tried to get him recused. As an aside, it is interesting that he would issue his ruling just before the CBA expires. I thought that I had heard that he was going to wait to let the parties negotiate until the CBA expires.

 

2. I typically do not care which group of millionaires makes more money. I do care about how the result will impact the Buffalo Bills and the Bills' staying in Buffalo. The owners and Tags negotiated a bad deal for the owners and a bad deal for small market teams the last go round. If I recall correctly, one of the problems is that the amount of money that served as the basis for applying the players' percentage was an amount higher than the money available for revenue sharing. I am glad that the owners woke up and opted out. Whatever the resulting deal is this time around, I hope that this is a good deal for the small market clubs. It is more likely in my mind that such a deal is more probable if the owners get what they want out of these negotiations. Again, I just want a deal that is good for Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills (and the other small market teams).

Edited March 2, 2011 by Peter

[Doc]

We knew the League worked a deal to get the insurance. The Special Master who ruled for the Leaugue (who is also aware of the terms of the CBA and the laws governing its enforcement) knew about this. It's not a secret, nor is the league denying they did this. They anticipated the possibility of a work stoppage in 3/11 (who didn't??) and were looking for the only type of financial insurance that existed. Smith didn't ask why the renegotiated contracts were (suspiciously??) not increased--he was too busy kissing Goodell's ass! Now he's screaming bloody murder.

 

Your response on this one is predictable, yet I still wanted to see if you would say it. Anyway, what would having such proof done to make a difference--the union, and the judge contend that the simple act of doing so (anytime, I presume) violates the CBA.

 

Again, Smith had only praise for the owners when he saw that the dollar amount had not changed on the value of the extra years on the renegotiated contracts. He had to know what went down and how these things work. In the event of a likely work stoppage, the owners had negotiated their ace in the hole--and he had his, the lawsuit, which he whipped out when it became necessary. Just as Upshaw knew (before the ink was dry) the 2006 CBA was a temporary measure that was not meant to reach 2012, Smith knew exactly what was going on.

To borrow a phrase from you doc, "the situation changed." Once Smith realized his ass-kissing wasn't working and that it wasn't going to be as easy as last time to get the owners fork-over more money, he went on the offensive. You laughed at it, and I'm sure you fancied the owners were laughing at it as well. Needless to say, no one on their side should be laughing anymore.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Judge Doty certainly did act on the issue with respect to the law. What do you think that he acted out of? Whim?

 

 

 

You are right that the issue was going to be revisted next year. But that is my point. Why re-open the CBA when it was going to expire a year later? Just maybe they thought they had better leverage with the illegal financial arrangement that allowed them to receive TV money during a lockout with the intention of not paying the players during that interlude.

 

 

 

Your above comment describes the absurdity of the owner instigated labor conflict. What was the need for an adjustment in the CBA when everyone was prospering more than they have ever prospered? Let's face it, you and I know the real reason. Raw greed on the part of the owners. They thought they had the leverage, which they do, and they are determined to exercise it to get a better deal from the one that is already working well for them.

 

Sometimes the over-simplifcation of the issue is the problem. The owner's ultimate responsibility is to sustain the viability of the league perpetually. The union's ultimate responsibility is to perpetuate the viability of the union and thus it's members. Each owner has his own issue to deal with in his organization, and each player represented by the union has his own issues to deal with that are important to him. As for leverage----so? Players use the leverage they have every season. I think we'd all agree that the union, given substantial leverage over the negotiations, would use it without mercy to benefit it's members.

 

I've always kind of wondered about the appearance of hypocrisy in the union world. Please note my use of the word "appearance". I truly do not want to paint every player with one broad brush. However---this is a business based on a game. Nothing more, nothing less. It always seems to me that when a fan or player wants to debate the greed of owners, why not include a look-see at the greed of some of the players? Why not get serious about this and recognize that some player are paid a kings ransom to play this game, and it's really not an equitable situation. So--negotiate with the owners, get them to open their books, but also look at spreading some of the additional wealth around that players like Brady and Manning are hoarding to other, more needy players. I think to a large extent players overestimate their value to the game. Don't get me wrong, marquis players are great to watch. At the same time, if the top 5 qb's in the game retired tomorrow, the game goes on. Free agency has done much to make the fans realize that it's a rare player indeed who really gives a second thought about their loyalty to a team/city/fan. Those that display that loyalty---God love 'em. For the rest, well, I enjoy watching them play but try not to get too wrapped up in what they may or may not get.

 

This ruling just reminds me that judges have agendas as well. Whether he's correct or not is largely irrelevant and frankly seems to be at the whim of whatever way the appeals court wants to look at it.

Edited March 2, 2011 by timmo1805

[Mr. WEO]

A few quick observatons:

 

1. Judge Doty always rules in favor of the NFLPA and against the owners. At one point, I think that the owners tried to get him recused. As an aside, it is interesting that he would issue his ruling just before the CBA expires. I thought that I had heard that he was going to wait to let the parties negotiate until the CBA expires.

 

2. I typically do not care which group of millionaires makes more money. I do care about how the result will impact the Buffalo Bills and the Bills' staying in Buffalo. The owners and Tags negotiated a bad deal for the owners and a bad deal for small market teams the last go round. If I recall correctly, one of the problems is that the amount of money that served as the basis for applying the players' percentage was an amount higher than the money available for revenue sharing. I am glad that the owners woke up and opted out. Whatever the resulting deal is this time around, I hope that this is a good deal for the small market clubs. It is more likely in my mind that such a deal is more probable if the owners get what they want out of these negotiations. Again, I just want a deal that is good for Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills (and the other small market teams).

"Small market" teams did very well--as football continued uninterrupted. If they were to falter, the low revenue (the "small market" term is meaningless) teams were guaranteed unprecedented amounts of extra revenue sharing as a direct result of that "bad deal" of a CBA. My guess is that the majority of the owners will not be so kind this time and the revenue sharing pool will actually go down--making the bottom feeders look back longingly at the deal they had as of 2006.

 

To borrow a phrase from you doc, "the situation changed." Once Smith realized his ass-kissing wasn't working and that it wasn't going to be as easy as last time to get the owners fork-over more money, he went on the offensive. You laughed at it, and I'm sure you fancied the owners were laughing at it as well. Needless to say, no one on their side should be laughing anymore.

 

The situation changed---yes (although I was actually paraphrasing the owners themselves).

 

Anyway, I'm not blaming Smith for his dog and pony show--what else can he do? But Judge Doty hasn't compelled the owners to give up their war chest just yet. An appeal is guaranteed--could take a while. Both sides know this.

[JohnC]

As you know, I told him back in 2006 how this was all going to go down and I've been 100% correct, yet he still can't bring himself to admit it.

 

If you told him that the owners were going to make more money under this CBA than the previous CBA and still be dissatisfied then you were prescient. If you told him that they were willing to use illegal tactics to excercise their leverage then you were attuned to their ravenous greed.

[Peter]

We shall see, but I disagree. Keep in mind that, under the deal that is about to end, the size of the pie that the owners share with the players and the size of the pie that the owners share with each other are different -- creating a disadvantage for small market teams relative to the big market teams. If that continues, it will more difficult for the small market teams -- both on the field and in terms of keeping teams in small markets.

 

Time will tell.

 

"Small market" teams did very well--as football continued uninterrupted. If they were to falter, the low revenue (the "small market" term is meaningless) teams were guaranteed unprecedented amounts of extra revenue sharing as a direct result of that "bad deal" of a CBA. My guess is that the majority of the owners will not be so kind this time and the revenue sharing pool will actually go down--making the bottom feeders look back longingly at the deal they had as of 2006.

[JohnC]

So--negotiate with the owners, get them to open their books, but also look at spreading some of the additional wealth around that players like Brady and Manning are hoarding to other, more needy players.

 

You must be joking. It is the owners who adamantly refuse to open their books. The union has told the owners if they are under financial duress then demonstrate that fact to the union and they would make the necessary adjustments for the sake of the long term viability of the game. The owners' payed for commissioner told the union that he was willing to show the union their increased costs but not allow them to see the profit margins. Even the commissioner was embarrassed by the position he had to take on behalf of the rapacious owners.

 

Why do you think the owners haven't seriously attempted to prove their claim, whatever it really is? Have you considered the fact that if the books were opened it would embarrassingly undercut their bogus claim of financial trouble?

 

No one is going to disagree that some of the salaries are not only absurdly extravagant but also stupendously stupid. Who is at fault for the insane Haynesworth and Clinton Portis contracts? The owner is.

 

In the NBA I am strongly on the side of the owners. A number of the franchises are losing money and are crashing toward insolvency. Their commissioner is willing to open the books to demonstrate their claim. A few years back when the NHL had a lockout for a new financial structure I was on the side of the owners simply because the current system was unsustainable, with a number of teams financially underwater. The owners were eager to open their books and prove their dire claims. That is not the case with the owners of the NFL. There is no doubt that they are making more money under this current CBA than they did prior to it. What they want is more on top of more. It is as simple as that.

[Doc]

"Small market" teams did very well--as football continued uninterrupted. If they were to falter, the low revenue (the "small market" term is meaningless) teams were guaranteed unprecedented amounts of extra revenue sharing as a direct result of that "bad deal" of a CBA. My guess is that the majority of the owners will not be so kind this time and the revenue sharing pool will actually go down--making the bottom feeders look back longingly at the deal they had as of 2006.

Not quite. You see, it takes a 2/3 majority (that's 24 owners) to pass a CBA. There aren't anywhere close to 24 large market teams. You do the math.

The situation changed---yes (although I was actually paraphrasing the owners themselves).

 

Anyway, I'm not blaming Smith for his dog and pony show--what else can he do? But Judge Doty hasn't compelled the owners to give up their war chest just yet. An appeal is guaranteed--could take a while. Both sides know this.

It was far more than a dog and pony show, as Doty's ruling proves. And sure there will be an appeal. But even if the next judge rules against the owners, one would think the owners should still be better-equipped to weather the (more painful) storm.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

You must be joking. It is the owners who adamantly refuse to open their books. The union has told the owners if they are under financial duress then demonstrate that fact to the union and they would make the necessary adjustments for the sake of the long term viability of the game. The owners' payed for commissioner told the union that he was willing to show the union their increased costs but not allow them to see the profit margins. Even the commissioner was embarrassed by the position he had to take on behalf of the rapacious owners.

 

Why do you think the owners haven't seriously attempted to prove their claim, whatever it really is? Have you considered the fact that if the books were opened it would embarrassingly undercut their bogus claim of financial trouble?

 

No one is going to disagree that some of the salaries are not only absurdly extravagant but also stupendously stupid. Who is at fault for the insane Haynesworth and Clinton Portis contracts? The owner is.

 

In the NBA I am strongly on the side of the owners. A number of the franchises are losing money and are crashing toward insolvency. Their commissioner is willing to open the books to demonstrate their claim. A few years back when the NHL had a lockout for a new financial structure I was on the side of the owners simply because the current system was unsustainable, with a number of teams financially underwater. The owners were eager to open their books and prove their dire claims. That is not the case with the owners of the NFL. There is no doubt that they are making more money under this current CBA than they did prior to it. What they want is more on top of more. It is as simple as that.

 

I'm not sure what you think I'm joking about? I suggested the unions continue to negotiate to get the books opened--of course it makes sense for them to have as much ammunition as possible to negotiate the best deal they can get for the union. When salaries go up, they win. And, while I have considered the fact that they don't want to open their books, I think it has nothing to do with "embarrassment" at all. It's a negotiation. Let's not kids ourselves, whatever side of the fence you're on----everyone---everyone is out for themselves in this deal. All the emotional garbage tossed in there is just that--garbage. With due respect to you and your opinion--suggesting one side is greedy while neglecting that the other side is aw well cheapens the argument. I find it interesting that you went from my question about players spreading the wealth by reducing their salaries, to blaming the owners for signing haynesworth and portis. these are examples of big swings, and big misses. but what about players respected for their expertise paid enormous sums of money----again i'll cite brady and peyton manning. when you draw lines in the sand, as in "owner's are greedy", how do you as a union supporter (in this case, anyways) reconcile the fact that some players make $10 million a year while others only a few hundred thousand? Good Lord--in your average business negotiation, someone banking $10m a year IS the target.

 

As for making more money today than previously....I disagree that it is simple as that. I mean, I suppose it could be all about the robber barons on big industry trying to snuff out the dreams of the average joe, but my experience leads me to believe it's quite a bit more complex than you've suggested. Maybe they're concerned about the future of the league---and plese, spare me the "it's a money machine and always will be" argument because it's not all that long ago that it would have seemed impossible for companies like GM and AIG to be taken over by the government. there are many more examples, but those two work for now.

 

 

So, whatever happens, happens.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

But even if the next judge rules against the owners, one would think the owners should still be better-equipped to weather the (more painful) storm.

I'll add this though Doc.

 

Both sides are under a tremendous amount of financial duress.

 

The teams in many (if not most) cases are servicing enormous amounts of debt with regard to money borrowed to purchase teams, build and improve stadiums, and also loans for cash to give as signing bonuses. Not all teams have cash on hand for these expenses.

 

It is very telling that many NFL teams have been laying off staff/furloughing workers and that many assistant coaches are looking at layoffs or reduced pay during a work stoppage scenario.

 

There'll be plenty of "suffering" to go around.

 

 

[Doc]

If you told him that the owners were going to make more money under this CBA than the previous CBA and still be dissatisfied then you were prescient. If you told him that they were willing to use illegal tactics to excercise their leverage then you were attuned to their ravenous greed.

I told him that it was a bad CBA, the owners would opt-out in 2 years, there would be an uncapped year, and getting a new CBA would be tough since the players got a taste of more money and wouldn't be willing to take a pay cut, and that a lockout was very possible. I had no idea about the "lockout insurance." But as I said, they should be better-equipped to weather the storm even if they don't get their money.

[JohnC]

I'm not sure what you think I'm joking about? I suggested the unions continue to negotiate to get the books opened--of course it makes sense for them to have as much ammunition as possible to negotiate the best deal they can get for the union.

 

The union is not trying to negotiate to get more. They want to maintain the current agreement. It was the owners, not the players, who opted out of it. On what basis did they do so? They won't say. I re-emphasize that it is the owners who made the claim that the negotiated CBA had to be adjusted without any evidence that there was a need to. The only way that the owners can demonstrate the need for an alteration of the current CBA is to show that their financial status was negatively impacted. How do you prove that claim? You do it with data, not unsubstantiated claims. How does a union negotiate with management or management negotiate with the union? You provide the figures to make your case. The owners are in unison resisting opening their books. Why? Because for sure their profit margins have gone up under this current CBA. If you don't accept my position then explain to me why they wouldn't they provide some $$$$ data, even if it is averaged out, to not reveal what they consider proprietary information. The union has no ability to make the owners open their books. If the owners say no to the open the books request then that is that.

 

 

When salaries go up, they win. And, while I have considered the fact that they don't want to open their books, I think it has nothing to do with "embarrassment" at all. It's a negotiation. Let's not kids ourselves, whatever side of the fence you're on----everyone---everyone is out for themselves in this deal.

 

The owners can't be "embarrassed" because they are shameless. What if the books showed that they were making substantially more under this contract than with the prior CBA? You don't think that is going to change the public perception of the owners' position?

 

All the emotional garbage tossed in there is just that--garbage. With due respect to you and your opinion--suggesting one side is greedy while neglecting that the other side is aw well cheapens the argument. I find it interesting that you went from my question about players spreading the wealth by reducing their salaries, to blaming the owners for signing haynesworth and portis. these are examples of big swings, and big misses. but what about players respected for their expertise paid enormous sums of money----again i'll cite brady and peyton manning. when you draw lines in the sand, as in "owner's are greedy", how do you as a union supporter (in this case, anyways) reconcile the fact that some players make $10 million a year while others only a few hundred thousand? Good Lord--in your average business negotiation, someone banking $10m a year IS the target.

 

Whatever Manning and Brady earn they deserve. They are that good and important to the franchise. Each team is under a cap amount. Their organizations decide how to distribute the remaining portion of the cap to the rest of the roster. Some teams are good at working the cap and others are not. If the Colts decide to give Manning a large share then the organization has less to spend on other needs. That is an organizational decision. I don't know how else to do it. There are owners who feel that they can't afford to spend up to the cap so they spend less. Different teams have different financial environments. It's not a totally equal system but it is a workable system that has proved to be profitable for all teams.

 

Maybe they're concerned about the future of the league---and plese, spare me the "it's a money machine and always will be" argument because it's not all that long ago that it would have seemed impossible for companies like GM and AIG to be taken over by the government. there are many more examples, but those two work for now.

 

I never said the gravy train was endless. Where did that come from? The point I have repeatedly made is if there is a need for a change in the terms of the CBA then make a credible effort to show why. The system is working well for both sides of the table. As of now I don't see the necessity of opting out of the current deal.

 

As I stated in the prior posting I'm not predisposed to be against the owners or management. I strongly support the NBA owners over the players in their upcoming labor negotiation and I strongly favored the owners in the hockey labor dispute. The NFL situation is a very situation.

 

I told him that it was a bad CBA, the owners would opt-out in 2 years, there would be an uncapped year, and getting a new CBA would be tough since the players got a taste of more money and wouldn't be willing to take a pay cut, and that a lockout was very possible. I had no idea about the "lockout insurance." But as I said, they should be better-equipped to weather the storm even if they don't get their money.

 

No one has ever doubted that the owners have more resources to weather the storm. Even the players know that. Sometimes the "Might Makes Right" mentality can be self-destructive.

Edited March 3, 2011 by JohnC

[CosmicBills]

 

Are ya still standing by your firm stance of a few weeks ago that this will be a strike and not a lockout?

 

Just curious.

[Hplarrm]

You're joking, right?

 

There are so many things wrong with that one supposition, but let's boil it down to this--if the "NFLPA" (after a name change, of course) formed a new league, every player would go running back to the NFL.

 

"New Leauges" have happened before. PLayers have come running back to the NFL before.

 

 

 

You do understand though that even if the players end up back in the NFL that new leagues are great for players because the actual free market of competition raises players salaries.

 

The USFL had stupid owners and lost virtually completely to the NFL in court. Yet, ask Jim Kelly and the rest of the players was the USFL a great thing for them and they would uniformly and correctly answer TES!

 

The AFL did far better than the USFL in that Mr. Ralph and the boys forced the NFL to fold them into the BFL, but even though the outcomes were very different ask Joe Namath and the rest of the players was the AFL a great thing for them and they would uniformly and correctly answer TES.

 

You really miss what the point is here when you think about where the players end up as the determinant of what is the correct thing to do.

 

The correct thing for the players is to make as much money as they ca,

 

This turned out to be the case with the USFL, the AFL and also by threatening to decertify itself which would have forced the team owners to actually compete in more of a free market.

 

The team owners chose the more socialistic approach of the CBA because there was more money to be made from a social compact with the players that guaranteed a product for the "real" money of the TV networks.

 

The determinant of success you seem to choose is really not what its all about.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

The union is not trying to negotiate to get more. They want to maintain the current agreement. It was the owners, not the players, who opted out of it. On what basis did they do so? They won't say. I re-emphasize that it is the owners who made the claim that the negotiated CBA had to be adjusted without any evidence that there was a need to. The only way that the owners can demonstrate the need for an alteration of the current CBA is to show that their financial status was negatively impacted. How do you prove that claim? You do it with data, not unsubstantiated claims. How does a union negotiate with management or management negotiate with the union? You provide the figures to make your case. The owners are in unison resisting opening their books. Why? Because for sure their profit margins have gone up under this current CBA. If you don't accept my position then explain to me why they wouldn't they provide some $$$$ data, even if it is averaged out, to not reveal what they consider proprietary information. The union has no ability to make the owners open their books. If the owners say no to the open the books request then that is that.

 

i'm not sure if you're deliberately splitting hairs or are so wrapped up in this emotionally that you're taking what i've said out of context. the fact that the union wanted to continue the existing agreement does not change the fact that the owner's had an option to opt out. they chose to go that route. if the option existed, it doesn't really matter why they chose to opt out, does it? again, for you it's pure greed and there's no other potential explanation. you see greed because they opted out, you see greed because they won't submit to the inspection of the books, and so on. even if you're correct----that 32 owners have decided to go this route in spite of obvious and guaranteed windfall profits in perpetuity, in spite of the potential risk in the court of public opinion, all so they could maximize profit at the expense of all else----with the option to opt out, they can opt out. i've read enough about some of the internal squabbles of ownership and seen enough teams with horrible organization structure to question a lockstep mentality that you feel is clear. To answer your question to me---why wouldn't they release the data, well, I'd think the owners want to negotiate the best deal they can for themselves and see no reason to share that data.

 

The owners can't be "embarrassed" because they are shameless. What if the books showed that they were making substantially more under this contract than with the prior CBA? You don't think that is going to change the public perception of the owners' position?

 

i think any individual who is short-sighted enough to think that "making more under this contract than with the prior CBA" is the only relevant point needs to recognize that that's only one part of the equation. the owner's by necessity should have a big picture view. i don't know that player's have that luxury, by the way, but if the owner's see potential problems with continuing the arrangement, why wouldn't they opt out even if they were profitable today? this isn't a partnership, it's not all for one, one for all.

 

 

Whatever Manning and Brady earn they deserve. They are that good and important to the franchise. Each team is under a cap amount. Their organizations decide how to distribute the remaining portion of the cap to the rest of the roster. Some teams are good at working the cap and others are not. If the Colts decide to give Manning a large share then the organization has less to spend on other needs. That is an organizational decision. I don't know how else to do it. There are owners who feel that they can't afford to spend up to the cap so they spend less. Different teams have different financial environments. It's not a totally equal system but it is a workable system that has proved to be profitable for all teams.

 

I understand your position and see it as hypocritical. Manning and Brady 'earn' their money regardless of how it impacts the team itself, other players on the team, and other members of the union. They have a right to grab what they can from the cookie jar, leaving whatever crumbs there might be for the rest of the great unwashed to fight over. They negotiate from that perspective knowing full well there is much less available for everyone else, knowing that their often insatiable appetite for life-altering inter-generational wealth that places them in the top 1% of wage earners in the world. They do all this knowing there is a finite amount of money available and that the management of the organization has to find creative ways to spend the remainder of the money. But, since they are on the player side of the line-----it's somehow different than the approach the owner's have taken. I see it as clear evidence that everyone's out for themselves.

 

You lose me right there, because your argument is without merit. I don't spend too much time worrying about what those guys get because I know they're in it for themselves, to enrich themselves and get what they can. I recognize the millions of dollars earned by the league, and if a guy can grab a few mill along the way, that's fine. I don't sense too much concern for retired players from most of these guys, I don't know that they're too concerned about the future of their team in the nfl, and i don't envy their talent nor their wealth (well, maybe a bit).

 

 

I never said the gravy train was endless. Where did that come from? The point I have repeatedly made is if there is a need for a change in the terms of the CBA then make a credible effort to show why. The system is working well for both sides of the table. As of now I don't see the necessity of opting out of the current deal.

Here's the crux of the matter. As a fan---I don't see any necessity for a lockout or strike. However, there is no earthly way for me to know the intimate details of this entire process. I certainly don't know the agenda of any of the players or owners, but "greed" is too simple and obvious an answer.

As I stated in the prior posting I'm not predisposed to be against the owners or management. I strongly support the NBA owners over the players in their upcoming labor negotiation and I strongly favored the owners in the hockey labor dispute. The NFL situation is a very situation.

 

I don't know anything about the NBA but understand you're not always pro-union across the board.

 

 

 

No one has ever doubted that the owners have more resources to weather the storm. Even the players know that. Sometimes the "Might Makes Right" mentality can be self-destructive.

 

This is very true for both parties to the negotiations.

Edited March 3, 2011 by timmo1805

[JohnC]

Timmo1805,

 

I don't agree with all your points but your perspective is well thought out and stated.

 

Instead of responding to the CBA and arguing back and forth on the same CBA issue I'll address the Manning and Brady contracts. What you describe as their gargantuan contract demands (greed) reflect the teams' calculation (and their own) as to their importance to the success of the team. Both of these players are indispuatably HOF players who have led their teams to multiple playoffs and championships (mostly with Brady). They negotiated with managagment (Peyton is in the process of working on a new deal) a contract that is commensurate with their contributions to the team. I don't know why you have an issue with that? How else is it supposed to be done? As previously stated all teams work under the cap. What is so surprising that the two best players in the league make the most money, or nearly the most amount?

 

There is going to come a time when Manning and Brady's level of play is going to decline. No one can defeat the laws of mother nature. When it gets to that point organizations will decide whether to continue paying at that level, readjust the contract or simply cut the player. It happens all the time. That is how the salary process works in the NFL. When it gets to a certain end of the line point organizations do make very hardnosed decisions. There is little sentiment involved that goes into the negotiation. It is simply business. When the Colts or Pats determine that there isn't value then the players will be released.

Edited March 3, 2011 by JohnC

[thebandit27]

Timmo1805,

 

I don't agree with all your points but your perspective is well thought out and stated.

 

Instead of responding to the CBA and arguing back and forth on the same CBA issue I'll address the Manning and Brady contracts. What you describe as their gargantuan contract demands (greed) reflect the teams' calculation (and their own) as to their importance to the success of the team. Both of these players are indispuatably HOF players who have led their teams to multiple playoffs and championships (mostly with Brady). They negotiated with managagment (Peyton is in the process of working on a new deal) a contract that is commensurate with their contributions to the team. I don't know why you have an issue with that? How else is it supposed to be done? As previously stated all teams work under the cap. What is so surprising that the two best players in the league make the most money, or nearly the most amount?

 

There is going to come a time when Manning and Brady's level of play is going to decline. No one can defeat the laws of mother nature. When it gets to that point organizations will decide whether to continue paying at that level, readjust the contract or simply cut the player. It happens all the time. That is how the salary process works in the NFL. When it gets to a certain end of the line point organizations do make very hardnosed decisions. There is little sentiment involved that goes into the negotiation. It is simply business. When the Colts or Pats determine that there isn't value then the players will be released.

 

Forgive me for lurking, gentlemen, but I just wanted to comment that this thread has produced some really provocative discussion.

 

As to this particular post, I'll just throw in that I think Timmo's point regarding Manning and Brady was that their contracts (and subsequent negotiations) are--rightfully so--aimed at making as much money as they possibly can, without regard to what of the Owners' limited resources will be available to their fellow union members. This, in and of itself, is perfectly acceptable as a negotiation tactic, and--to a greater extent--something I consider to be a responsibility incumbent upon them as elite performers in their industry. However, the rub lies in these same players (Manning and Brady) taking acception to the Owners following a similar mentality. While the situations are certainly different, all parties (in all cases) share the same directive of looking to maximize their earning potential based upon their contributions to the game...a common mindset if you will.

 

Now I'll exit and leave you two to your discussion, as I stated my position on the matter several times (I have a beef with both sides, but generally side with ownership in the end).

Edited March 3, 2011 by thebandit27

[Mr. WEO]

Not quite. You see, it takes a 2/3 majority (that's 24 owners) to pass a CBA. There aren't anywhere close to 24 large market teams. You do the math.

 

It was far more than a dog and pony show, as Doty's ruling proves. And sure there will be an appeal. But even if the next judge rules against the owners, one would think the owners should still be better-equipped to weather the (more painful) storm.

"Large and Small Market teams" are meaningless terms, as you know. There are high revenue teams and low revenue teams. Teh top 24 revenue temas include the "small market" addresses you imagine: Green Bay, KC, Cleveland, Pitt, NO.... Also, the bottom 8 revenue teams, usually including the Bills, include some of the most profitable teams in the league. You see, easily 2/3 of teams would like to hold onto what they have and not agree to another gross increase in revenue sharing. As more teams expereince more revenue, they, like you and I, don't like to pay more "taxes".

 

But you are right, history (and common sense) will demonstrate that the players will not tolerate missing checks (which begins tomorrow for hundreds of guys due roster bonuses) and will push their leadership (if they haven't decertified) to sign a deal.

 

 

 

Are ya still standing by your firm stance of a few weeks ago that this will be a strike and not a lockout?

 

Just curious.

I stand by my statements, son.

 

"if they decertify, they can challenge the antitrust status of the NFL, but the court has hinted that the union won't prevail. The lawsuit may allow an injunction against a lockout and allow games to be played--but that's assuming there will be a lockout. If the league simply tells these guys to show up to training camp under their current contracts, then the players will have to show up, sign a new CBA or strike."

 

I don't think it's in the best interest of the owners to lockout the players, so I think they won't. It would be better for them to let the players decide to not show up for work.

 

We'll find out tomorrow.

[Doc]

"Large and Small Market teams" are meaningless terms, as you know. There are high revenue teams and low revenue teams. Teh top 24 revenue temas include the "small market" addresses you imagine: Green Bay, KC, Cleveland, Pitt, NO.... Also, the bottom 8 revenue teams, usually including the Bills, include some of the most profitable teams in the league. You see, easily 2/3 of teams would like to hold onto what they have and not agree to another gross increase in revenue sharing. As more teams expereince more revenue, they, like you and I, don't like to pay more "taxes".

I'm not advocating any increase in revenue sharing. What I am advocating is going back to the pre-2006 model and having the same revenue shared and the cap based only on that, but giving the players a smaller percentage. IOW, make them take a paycut. That model worked fine for over a decade with little grumbling by the owners.

But you are right, history (and common sense) will demonstrate that the players will not tolerate missing checks (which begins tomorrow for hundreds of guys due roster bonuses) and will push their leadership (if they haven't decertified) to sign a deal.

They can't decertify. Well, they can, but that would make their case against the owners WRT "lockout insurance" moot, and that's the biggest weapon they have in their arsenal.