Anyone think the NFLPA messed up?

[Marv's Neighbor]

Not much about this has really been in the news? Lack of media coverage is a bad thing for the players.

 

They are being up-staged by the Wisconsin labor situation, our own Government financial situation and later the Japan earthquake. There's also not much sympathy for either side considering the economic situation in this country. Overall, not many people care about which group of millionaires "wins."

 

Reality will not really sink in till we get much closer to the actual season, but that assumes that no other events happen to again divert peoples attention.

 

Is the NFLPA messed up??? Absolutely! In hindsight, the players should have taken what the owners offered in hopes of a better deal next time. Now that NFLPA is de-certified, who has standing to represent them as a group? Labor Solidarity will become difficult absent a collective bargaining unit. The economy is against any "new" league formations, so this could be a very long work stopage.

 

Maybe BUF could talk the Argo's into playing a couple of games at the Ralph? Payback EH?

[JohnC]

You do realize that "cut" would end up be the same or more money any given year? De smith really tried the bridge the gap with that one.

 

I absolutely do understand that the end result would be the same if the same amount of revenue was factored in. That wasn't the purpose of my response. What I intended to demonstrate was that BillsVet's characterization of the offer was the opposite of what it really was. He stated that the owners made the offer and the players refused it. That wasn't an accurate portrayal. The players made the offer and the owners rejected it.

[Rob's House]

Last time I check, freedom of speech still applies in this country, Adolf, or is the tea party taking that away, too. I'll post where I please. We'll try to approach this in a manner closer to a tea-bagger's heart, if there is such a thing. How about the owners crying poor and threatening to lock the fans out of the stadiums that each community in large part has helped to fund. Ralph paid for the stadium and improvements on his own? He gives away the parking there for free as well? He and the other owners have had the public in these 32 cities bent so far over that you could see our collective colons. Let's not even mention merchandising, new uniforms, so the public needs to buy a new jersey and I am supposed to somehow side with these creeps?

 

In addition, the average player's career is so short and their health often negatively impacted for the rest of their lives ... I would try and get a bigger piece of the pie too - or surely not give more away without proof. Dave Duerson of the bears dies with serious brain damage and age 44 ... Robert Edwards of the pats is at an NFL sanctioned event and blows his knee out and is out of the league by age 28. I'll side with those that work and do the heavy lifting everyday of the week.

Just when it seems you couldn't get any dumber you break new ground. Congratulations.

 

What I got out of this mindless drivel, which you know doubt believe is brilliant, is that this discussion triggers YOUR autopilot response. The owners may be in the wrong here, but if so you've done nothing to make that case except using your trite class warfare argument that amounts to "he who has more is wrong." Sounds like you struggle with an inferiority complex that stems from jealousy and feelings of inadequacy that grow out of your inability to live up to the expectations you have of yourself.

 

And take it easy on the first amendment, bright boy. He just told you to keep your political ramblings in the proper forum, it's hardly comparable to the Third Reich, and I'd love to hear how it equates to Tea Baggers.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Rob's House

[Bob in STL]

Please stop with this it's about the fans nonsense. The money comes from TV and TV alone. That money comes from huge corporations buying advertising funnelled through Madison Ave. To the NFL, you are a more important fan if you stay home and watch the game instead of showing up at the stadium.

BTW you do realize the owners are billionaires. The minimum wage guy should side with them? Me thinks you are a Tea Bagger.

 

 

Exactly right.

 

The players can ask to see the books. No law prohibits that as part of the negotiation. The owners can choose to share them or not. They can lock the players out and bring in replacements too.

 

I will NOT attend an NFL game played by replacements and more importantly I will not waste a Sunday afternoon watching replacements on TV. If the TV the sponsers believe that the majority of the fans will not watch the games on TV the owners will come back to the table. The problems is the owners can sit it out longer than the players. They have more $$.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Bob in STL

[Sisyphean Bills]

I absolutely do understand that the end result would be the same if the same amount of revenue was factored in. That wasn't the purpose of my response. What I intended to demonstrate was that BillsVet's characterization of the offer was the opposite of what it really was. He stated that the owners made the offer and the players refused it. That wasn't an accurate portrayal. The players made the offer and the owners rejected it.

 

On the other hand, there are plenty of articles that say the owners did make offers and that the players filed class action lawsuits to stop the lockout before the owners had even put the lockout in place.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-farmer-20110313,0,1165646.story?track=rss

 

Welcome to spin control.

[BillsVet]

I absolutely do understand that the end result would be the same if the same amount of revenue was factored in. That wasn't the purpose of my response. What I intended to demonstrate was that BillsVet's characterization of the offer was the opposite of what it really was. He stated that the owners made the offer and the players refused it. That wasn't an accurate portrayal. The players made the offer and the owners rejected it.

 

Owners wanted 1B off the top, and eventually negotiated down to 325M of that pool. So no, the 9B wasn't halved toward players and owners.

 

OTOH, the owner's offer was made at noon on Friday, and the players countered with demanding to see audited financials at 4PM or thereabouts. A constant theme in these negotiations is the players as partners, for which I do not agree. De Smith has been preaching this since the time he took over in 2009, but it's his trial lawyer contentious overtones which need to be analyzed for what they are-a prelude to what we have now.

 

Players assume a physical risk playing this game. Regardless, I don't see that translating into being full or less than majority partners in the NFL, which is why I don't side with their "right" to see financial records as a requirement to continue negotiating.

[indiragandhi'sthong]

Wow Rob, do you always rescue Nanker? I am relatively new to this board, but I take someone telling me where I should post items that do have to do with union matters (see topic. NFL ... PA) at the very least a misguided recommendation ... point taken on the first amendment.

 

As for my "inferiority complex" perhaps you have diagnosed me after reading my post Dr. Freud ... more likely, I have experienced firsthand throughout my life the benefits of union representation and feel it extends even to athletes. If you don't like my posts, there are plenty of people on here whose views are more inline with yours ... cozy up to them.

 

I for one, enjoy reading those with contrary views ... and I won't ask them to post elsewhere. But, I suppose if you are from the FOX approach to media control, micromanaging other's opinions is the way to go.

 

Wow Rob, do you always rescue Nanker? I am relatively new to this board, but I take someone telling me where I should post items that do have to do with union matters (see topic. NFL ... PA) at the very least a misguided recommendation ... point taken on the first amendment.

 

As for my "inferiority complex" perhaps you have diagnosed me after reading my post Dr. Freud ... more likely, I have experienced firsthand throughout my life the benefits of union representation and feel it extends even to athletes. If you don't like my posts, there are plenty of people on here whose views are more inline with yours ... cozy up to them.

 

I for one, enjoy reading those with contrary views ... and I won't ask them to post elsewhere. But, I suppose if you are from the FOX approach to media control, micromanaging other's opinions is the way to go.

[indiragandhi'sthong]

Just when it seems you couldn't get any dumber you break new ground. Congratulations.

 

What I got out of this mindless drivel, which you know doubt believe is brilliant, is that this discussion triggers YOUR autopilot response. The owners may be in the wrong here, but if so you've done nothing to make that case except using your trite class warfare argument that amounts to "he who has more is wrong." Sounds like you struggle with an inferiority complex that stems from jealousy and feelings of inadequacy that grow out of your inability to live up to the expectations you have of yourself.

 

And take it easy on the first amendment, bright boy. He just told you to keep your political ramblings in the proper forum, it's hardly comparable to the Third Reich, and I'd love to hear how it equates to Tea Baggers.

As for the Adolf, it was meant as sarcasm ... or is that an issue on this site as well? Equating the Tea Party and its backing of politicians like Walker in Wisconsin, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Michelle Bachman in Minnesota, etc. With the Third Reich ... well, Hitler did ban unions and collective bargaining in1933 as a way to stifle dissent. Oops, but this is a sports site ... I'd better stop with the politics.

[Rob's House]

As for the Adolf, it was meant as sarcasm ... or is that an issue on this site as well? Equating the Tea Party and its backing of politicians like Walker in Wisconsin, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Michelle Bachman in Minnesota, etc. With the Third Reich ... well, Hitler did ban unions and collective bargaining in1933 as a way to stifle dissent. Oops, but this is a sports site ... I'd better stop with the politics.

There is a political subforum on this site, we can always use a good lib over there to keep the debate lively.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Here's another article. This one actually does try to ride the fence and calls a spade a spade.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0313-haugh-nfl-labor--20110312,0,7161607.column

[JohnC]

On the other hand, there are plenty of articles that say the owners did make offers and that the players filed class action lawsuits to stop the lockout before the owners had even put the lockout in place.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-farmer-20110313,0,1165646.story?track=rss

 

Welcome to spin control.

 

There was a good reason why the players filed an early suit regarding the impending lockout. It was obvious what the owners were going to do. The fraudulent TV deal giving the owners, and not the players, money during a lockout clearly signaled a lockout strategy . You don't have to be a brilliant strategist to figure out what the owners were going to do. Even a moneky could have figured out what the conniving owners were going to do.

 

It was a Ronald Reagan appointed judge, Doty, whose prior long and distinguished legal career was mostly as a corporate attorney who competed against the unions made a determination that the owners made an illegal (unfair labor practice) deal with the coerced networks. That tawdry scenario was the backdrop for the union's legal action.

[SoulMan]

I fixed your statement.

 

I think the minimum salary in the NFL in 2010 was something like $325,000. The crappiest player in the league can stay around 3 years and earn roughly 1 million. Assuming the average joe makes 50K a year, it would take Mr. Joe 20 yrs to earn that. We all pay taxes and many of us pay union fees as well. The fact that a player like Jamarcus Russell, after receiving millions before ever playing a snap, has a house in foreclosure is NOT the NFL's problem.

 

Part of the next CBA should include some mandatory financial counseling sessions for all players who score less than a 10 on the wonderlic

 

Dude, You are clueless.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I own a couple of stores, & if any of my employees gave me an ultamatum demanding that I turn over all my financial records so they could determine if I'm paying them enough or not, they would be locked out the next day too. I wonder if the players truly realize that the fans are responsible for making them millionaires... & the vast majority earn between minimum wage & 20 bucks an hour.

 

Understood, but the leverage the NFLPA has on this is that they have anti-trust exemption and by not giving up enough info that the NFLPA demanded. Because the whole TV rights debacle the NFLPA doesn't trust the owners claims of hardship which is the reason for the request for info. So I understand why the owners don't want to give up the info and not sure they should.

 

But the NFLPA has leverage on the anti-trust side and a lawsuit over it which may for the owners to provide the info anyway. From a non-fan standpoint this is very interesting. From a fan standpoint this is infuriating. Neither side has any claim at moral high ground. It is all one of negotiation and leverage.

 

P.S. In my opinion the game has gotten boring. Too many TV timeouts and delays.

[GaryPinC]

The real issue here is the new NFLPA leadersip. They are different than the old group and the style and the vision is different. The fight is about control, not money. Smith wants control and power and the older group wanted fairness and to play the game.

This will not get settled easily. Smith has changed the dynamics and matches the owners now. This is neither good or bad, but because Goodell is a solution type guy he can control the owners and get a deal. Smith does not want a solution at this point in his career. He wants power and control.

I have been in this position many times...the solution must come from the players behind Smith because he does not want a contract solution as I said.

 

Interesting to me that we have 2 parties with one fighting over money and the other fighting for power.

 

 

Excellent post and one that I agree on completely. It's all about power for Smith, he wants to elevate the players to partners so they can control the money flow of the league. Seems like the owners made a fair offer on Friday and came way down on most of their demands. Smith had already made up his mind that unless he saw the detailed financials, they were decertifying. Seems like the owners are the only ones trying to seriously negotiate. Now that Smith has seen how much the owners were willing to negotiate, he will try and hammer even more out of them. At least the court case wasn't assigned to Doty this time.

[Sisyphean Bills]

There was a good reason why the players filed an early suit regarding the impending lockout. It was obvious what the owners were going to do. The fraudulent TV deal giving the owners, and not the players, money during a lockout clearly signaled a lockout strategy . You don't have to be a brilliant strategist to figure out what the owners were going to do. Even a moneky could have figured out what the conniving owners were going to do.

 

It was a Ronald Reagan appointed judge, Doty, whose prior long and distinguished legal career was mostly as a corporate attorney who competed against the unions made a determination that the owners made an illegal (unfair labor practice) deal with the coerced networks. That tawdry scenario was the backdrop for the union's legal action.

Dude. I'm not saying the owners are completely in the right here. I don't think they are. And I hardly think the NFLPA is without fault no matter how you choose to paint the picture with your posts. Both sides share the blame.

 

The real issue here is the new NFLPA leadersip. They are different than the old group and the style and the vision is different. The fight is about control, not money. Smith wants control and power and the older group wanted fairness and to play the game.

This will not get settled easily. Smith has changed the dynamics and matches the owners now. This is neither good or bad, but because Goodell is a solution type guy he can control the owners and get a deal. Smith does not want a solution at this point in his career. He wants power and control.

I have been in this position many times...the solution must come from the players behind Smith because he does not want a contract solution as I said.

 

Interesting to me that we have 2 parties with one fighting over money and the other fighting for power.

Well stated.

[JohnC]

Dude. I'm not saying the owners are completely in the right here. I don't think they are. And I hardly think the NFLPA is without fault no matter how you choose to paint the picture with your posts. Both sides share the blame.

 

 

Well stated.

 

As I have said on numerous occasions there are no angels sitting at the table, now scattered about. The point I have made in my postings is that it was the owners, not the players, who precipitated this road to combat. The overreaching owners laid out a strategy that they could lock out the union and out resource them with their ill gotten TV money. Then they were going to impose their own terms to what they thought was going to be a fractured union. It didn't work out as they had planned.

 

Judge Doty changed the dynamics to the the owner/union dispute. So now we got a mess. I'm not for taking this dispute over slicing the revenue pie to the courts. That is a snake-pit that I would have preferred avoiding. But I understand why it was done.

 

The only real solution is to get back to the bargaining table and work it out. With the de-certification of the union I'm not sure if that can be done. When you open up the pandora's box you are likely to be surprised at what comes out.

 

My position on this matter has been consistent. The owners made a claim with no evidence to support their claim. Now the parties are are going to be entangled in the morass of the legal system. This development could have been avoided. It was so unnecessary.

Edited March 14, 2011 by JohnC

[Doc]

As I have said on numerous occasions there are no angels sitting at the table, now scattered about. The point I have made in my postings is that it was the owners, not the players, who precipitated this road to combat. The overreaching owners laid out a strategy that they could lock out the union and out resource them with their ill gotten TV money. Then they were going to impose their own terms to what they thought was going to be a fractured union. It didn't work out as they had planned.

 

Judge Doty changed the dynamics to the the owner/union dispute. So now we got a mess. I'm not for taking this dispute over slicing the revenue pie to the courts. That is a snake-pit that I would have preferred avoiding. But I understand why it was done.

 

The only real solution is to get back to the bargaining table and work it out. With the de-certification of the union I'm not sure if that can be done. When you open up the pandora's box you are likely to be surprised at what comes out.

 

My position on this matter has been consistent. The owners made a claim with no evidence to support their claim. Now the parties are are going to be entangled in the morass of the legal system. This development could have been avoided. It was so unnecessary

If you mean it could have been avoided had the owners not bent over and taken a bad deal back in 2006, I agree with you. However after that happened, this was inevitable. The players got the best of the owners last time, and now the owners want money back. The "lockout insurance" means little in the grand scheme of things, and if I'm not mistaken, the owners can receive the money now that the NFLPA has decertified.

[Fixxxer]

There was a good reason why the players filed an early suit regarding the impending lockout. It was obvious what the owners were going to do. The fraudulent TV deal giving the owners, and not the players, money during a lockout clearly signaled a lockout strategy . You don't have to be a brilliant strategist to figure out what the owners were going to do. Even a moneky could have figured out what the conniving owners were going to do.

 

It was a Ronald Reagan appointed judge, Doty, whose prior long and distinguished legal career was mostly as a corporate attorney who competed against the unions made a determination that the owners made an illegal (unfair labor practice) deal with the coerced networks. That tawdry scenario was the backdrop for the union's legal action.

 

Honest question here, I've been listening to the players talking about decertifying the union since at least last off-season, when did the owners made the "fraudulent" deal with the TV networks? Was it before or after the rumors of decertification?

 

Another thing to ponder, the owners opted out of the last CBA citing that they are not making a good enough profit to sustain a viable business. I keep hearing about the owners being dishonest and untrustworthy. If they were such evil men why are they opting out of a CBA that gave them carte blanche to institute an 18 game season without the players approval?

 

“[W]e offered to take the 18-game season off the table for now, and that it would be something we would re-visit in two years, and then it would have to be agreed to by both sides,” Rooney said. “That 18-game season seemed to be one of the biggest issues, as far as we knew, that the players were concerned about. So taking that off the table, we felt, was a major move on our part. But it really got zero reaction. Again, they seemed to not really want to continue negotiations, and rather to get into their litigation strategy. . . . nder the current agreement, the one that just expired, we had the right to change the season without the players’ approval. This we felt was a major concession, a major step toward their side in terms of trying to address something that they had expressed a lot of concern about. Again, for them to not even really respond to that was very disappointing.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/art-rooney-assails-unions-tactic-expects-initial-hearing-this-week/

 

 

My opinion gravitates towards the intelectuall owners of the businees called the NFL. I know the players are a big part of the business, that is why they were included in the revenue machinery but that inclusion should always be within a reasonable limit.

 

This one is a rethoric question, did the NFL died when Brady injured his knee in 2008?

[Malazan]

The problem I can't get around though in the fan argument is that it's not the players that are expendable. You make it sound like you would shell out hundreds of dollars a year to watch some 4th stringers start rather than Brady, Manning, etc. That's simply not true. The owners are the expendable ones...there are plenty of billionaires who have nothing better to do with their money than buy a football team...couple that with the fact that a franchise in the NFL runs successfully as a public stock option and I'd say it's the owners with a bloated sense of their worth in the process.

 

Name one person that's even on the radar for buying an NFL team that has a billion dollars (cash) to pay for a team. Very few teams are paid for outright and even when a billionaire buys a team, he generally finances part of it.

 

The big part of the problem is the valuation of the teams doesn't mesh with the actual profit. Yes, Dallas and Washington make 200 million a year (and that's something the owners need to address, Ralph seems to have put the financial facts together. He is good at keeping money, afterall , but many teams make less than the Bills (30 million/yr) after paying back the interest and making loan payments.

 

What bank is going to finance a billion dollar investment that makes 30 million a year? It would takes 33 years to pay off a franchise at that rate if all 30 million went to paying the loan and there was no interest. This is what many fans and apparently, DeMaurice Smith , are missing. What happens if Banks do not have confidence that these loans can be paid back? The franchises would not be bought or their value would drop (which would most certainly affect the players and their salaries).

 

Haven't we seen this with the 'problem' with the Bills in Buffalo? Anyone buying the team would be looking at loan/interest payments that would basically eliminate any profit. Many owners could lose 20 million and not notice. They're certainly greedy, but this 'fight' isn't about putting a few extra bucks in their posckets. It's a much more complicated financial issue.

 

 

That aside, the owners like Jerry Jones have caused this problem to exist by forcing up valuations without care for the consequences. They can't expect the players to bail them out. However, the NFLPA made a poor hire in Smith (who was taking this legal from the moment he was hired) and has spent way too much time framing this as 'I can't feed my family or afford Health Insurance' instead of acknowledging that it's a complicated matter and that perhaps before building billion dollar stadiums on a whim that the entire financial situation of the league (and country) should be considered.

 

Neither side in this smells like anything other than poop.

[JohnC]

If you mean it could have been avoided had the owners not bent over and taken a bad deal back in 2006, I agree with you. However after that happened, this was inevitable. The players got the best of the owners last time, and now the owners want money back. The "lockout insurance" means little in the grand scheme of things, and if I'm not mistaken, the owners can receive the money now that the NFLPA has decertified.

 

If the deal the owners agreed to was such a bad deal then why haven't they explained or documented why it was such a bad deal? Maybe they can't? What if the financial records they steadfastly refuse to exhibit show that they have made exponentially more under the current CBA than prior to its signing then what is the basis of their claim?

 

The judge is the one who is going to determine what happens with the un-fair labor practice TV money. I have no clue as to whether he is going to split it or withhold it. This is a mess that could have been avoided. Now instead of a negotiation done at the table it is put in a slow-moving legal system that could possibly damage both sides.

 

The irony is that the court master, possibly Judge Doty or another judge, can compel the owners to reveal more financial data than they originally wanted to. I am of the mind that both parties should battle each other into bloody submission. They deserve each other.