Bills not funding coaches' pension & 401K plans

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Someone in the NFLCA (which does not represent all coaches--it's voluntary) filed the brief. That someone apparently didn't tell any of the coaches the NFLCA represents that such a brief would be filed or what it's nature was. I don't know the motivation of the individual who filed it, but it is abundantly clear from that article that the rank and file, such as it is, does not support the brief. Therefore, your claim that they coaches side with the players becuase of lockout clauses in their contracts cannot be true.

 

Why did the NFLPA file it? To make some noise, I guess. It certainly was not in the best interest or at the request of its members. No need to speculate about that.

I think you're being a bit premature.

 

At this point, 12 teams have disavowed the NFLCA amicus. There are 32 teams in the league. I'm quite interested to see what the final tally is.

 

Also, as we all discussed at the time of this particular action, it puts the coaches in a very odd dynamic. I am not finding the statements by the coaching staffs disavowing the brief to be very compelling.

 

On more than one occasion in my life have I felt coerced by my bosses to take a certain position with an implied threat to my job.

 

In other words, "do this or else."

 

I think taking the disavowals at face value is pretty naive.

 

Am I the only one who found it odd that Curtis Modkins is suddenly the spokesperson for the Bills coaching staff on this issue? I'm trying to remember the last time I heard Curtis Modkins say anything.

 

And the majority of the coaching staffs, at least at this time, still support the amicus.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

I think you're being a bit premature.

 

At this point, 12 teams have disavowed the NFLCA amicus. There are 32 teams in the league. I'm quite interested to see what the final tally is.

 

Also, as we all discussed at the time of this particular action, it puts the coaches in a very odd dynamic. I am not finding the statements by the coaching staffs disavowing the brief to be very compelling.

 

On more than one occasion in my life have I felt coerced by my bosses to take a certain position with an implied threat to my job.

 

In other words, "do this or else."

 

I think taking the disavowals at face value is pretty naive.

 

Am I the only one who found it odd that Curtis Modkins is suddenly the spokesperson for the Bills coaching staff on this issue? I'm trying to remember the last time I heard Curtis Modkins say anything.

 

And the majority of the coaching staffs, at least at this time, still support the amicus.

 

Why/how do you come to the conclusion that the majority of coaches support the brief? How many are actually members of the NFLCA?

 

It is naive to believe that the coaches disavowing the brief are not being coerced into doing so by owners? That's a very interesting position you are taking, to say the least.

 

Where all (any?) of the statements of the coaches who publicly support the brief who led you to your conclusion that rest are being coerced? Are they the "silent majority"?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Why/how do you come to the conclusion that the majority of coaches support the brief? How many are actually members of the NFLCA?

 

It is naive to believe that the coaches disavowing the brief are not being coerced into doing so by owners? That's a very interesting position you are taking, to say the least.

 

Where all (any?) of the statements of the coaches who publicly support the brief who led you to your conclusion that rest are being coerced? Are they the "silent majority"?

Oh WEO. You're such a silly person.

 

We're both speculating so it comes down to who has a more compelling case.

 

I addressed two very pertinent facts in support of my opinion where you have nothing… but your unsupported opinion.

 

Firstly, that the coaches are paid by the owners. It is not in the least implausible (actually it may be more plausible) that some of the team owners have put pressure, either explicit or implicit on their coaching staffs to disavow the amicus. Really, who's being naive, WEO? You don't think that someone like Daniel Snyder who is frivolously suing a newspaper and Mike Shanahan who is coming off a disastrous season and could be fearful for his job don't form a perfect dynamic for disavowing the brief? Have you never had a boss pressure you to take a position that was unpopular amongst your colleagues?

 

Secondly, that despite your speculating about the number of staffs for or against the brief, the actual facts are that since the brief was filed over two weeks ago, 12 teams have spoken against the briefs for whatever reasons which means that 20 teams have not spoken against it. That's pretty simple math to me.

 

Granted the numbers might change. Like I said in my earlier post, I'm curious to see what the numbers end up being. But whatever the numbers end up being, I think it's naive to dismiss the effect that upper management has in at the very least, implicitly pressuring the coaching staffs to disavow the amicus.

 

Moving on, you ask how many staffs belong to the NFLCA.

 

Correct me if I'm missing something obvious here (I'm not) but if a coaching staff wasn't a member of the NFLCA, wouldn't they immediately make a public statement to this effect to protect themselves from the assumption that the NFLCA represents them?

 

And yet you somehow want to imply that the 20 groups who have not spoken against the brief are secretly are against it? If they are against the brief, what would the coaches have to gain by being silent? They would have more to gain by speaking against the brief, therefore supporting the owner who pays their salaries and benefits.

 

The obvious conclusion that most rationale people would draw is that the 20 staffs who have not spoken against the brief under implied pressure by ownership and have remained silent is tacit approval of the amicus brief.

 

Please explain also (as I did ask before) why Curtis Modkins is now the spokesperson for the Bills coaching staff?

 

You were correctly accused in another discussion this week of "moving the goalposts."

 

I'd really like for you to show some intellectual honesty and take up my argument on a point by point basis. No more red herrings and straw men. I've made some simple points. Have at them.

Edited June 4, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Doc]

Why would the coaches side with anyone, much less the players?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Why would the coaches side with anyone, much less the players?

Well let's see.

 

As was stated numerous times when the brief was filed, the dynamic for coaches is very difficult. They're caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

On one hand they are employees of the team. However, so are the players so in that regard, the coaches are more in the same boat as the players. It's similar to if a Hotel Owner locked out the Housekeeping staff but kept the Valet Staff employed because they had different contracts. The Valets probably sympathize more with the Housekeeping staff than they do the owner but because they are still employed and paid by the owner, they can't really publicly support the Housekeeping staff.

 

 

Many of the coaching staffs are losing money right now. The fact that the owners locked out the players means that ultimately, if there is no game, there is less or no pay for coaches. Regardless of how people want to break it down, the Owners opted out of the CBA and then locked out the players. I know there are extenuating circumstances but these are the simple facts. Given those facts, who are the coaches more likely to support (even if secretly)?

 

Finally, only Head Coaches have guaranteed contracts. Most coaches (I remember talking to Bruce DeHaven about this) are vagabonds or "cowboys" as he put it. They rarely stay long in one place, they have very little job security, and most of them work long hours for marginal pay. I know that many coaches hope to see the day when their profession is unionized. However organizing a union shop where one does not exist is a very challenging task. Many owners of big businesses are anti-union and are hostile to efforts to organize. Coaches already have very shaky job security. Publicly supporting unions or efforts to unionize only make their jobs that much less secure.

Edited June 4, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Doc]

Well let's see.

 

As was stated numerous times when the brief was filed, the dynamic for coaches is very difficult. They're caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

On one hand they are employees of the team. However, so are the players so in that regard, the coaches are more in the same boat as the players. It's similar to if a Hotel Owner locked out the Housekeeping staff but kept the Valet Staff employed because they had different contracts. The Valets probably sympathize more with the Housekeeping staff than they do the owner but because they are still employed and paid by the owner, they can't really publicly support the Housekeeping staff.

 

 

Many of the coaching staffs are losing money right now. The fact that the owners locked out the players means that ultimately, if there is no game, there is less or no pay for coaches. Regardless of how people want to break it down, the Owners opted out of the CBA and then locked out the players. I know there are extenuating circumstances but these are the simple facts. Given those facts, who are the coaches more likely to support (even if secretly)?

 

Finally, only Head Coaches have guaranteed contracts. Most coaches (I remember talking to Bruce DeHaven about this) are vagabonds or "cowboys" as he put it. They rarely stay long in one place, they have very little job security, and most of them work long hours for marginal pay. I know that many coaches hope to see the day when their profession is unionized. However organizing a union shop where one does not exist is a very challenging task. Many owners of big businesses are anti-union and are hostile to efforts to organize. Coaches already have very shaky job security. Publicly supporting unions or efforts to unionize only make their jobs that much less secure.

If you're caught between a rock and a hard place, the best option is to remain silent unless forced to talk, which I doubt was the case. It was stupid for them to throw their support behind the players because it looks bad politically (i.e. to their bosses) and realistically it does nothing to settle the matter since it's a fight between the owners and players.

 

The players could end this today by accepting the owners' last offer. Or they could look elsewhere for employment. Nowhere were they guaranteed to a) keep making a greater percentage of total revenues OR b) play in the NFL. And it's not like they're being forced to accept anything close to unfair wages.

 

And finally, as you said, only HC's have guaranteed contracts. You would think that they'd be the ones less likely to support the Amicus brief, not the assistants like Modkins, who don't have guaranteed contracts and who will see their pay reduced. And I don't think it says anything that Modkins was the guy to come out against the brief and I doubt he broke ranks with Gailey to do so.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

If you're caught between a rock and a hard place, the best option is to remain silent unless forced to talk, which I doubt was the case. It was stupid for them to throw their support behind the players because it looks bad politically (i.e. to their bosses) and realistically it does nothing to settle the matter since it's a fight between the owners and players.

 

 

And finally, as you said, only HC's have guaranteed contracts. You would think that they'd be the ones less likely to support the Amicus brief, not the assistants like Modkins, who don't have guaranteed contracts and who will see their pay reduced. And I don't think it says anything that Modkins was the guy to come out against the brief and I doubt he broke ranks with Gailey to do so.

Hey Doc. This is to you and WEO as well.

 

Just so everyone knows, I'm not getting into a debate about owners vs players. In this discussion, I'm only interested in the dynamic involving the coaches and where they are positioned relative to the owners and the players.

 

I'd like to articulate as to why I think the coaches are in an unenviable position and what dynamics would cause them to speak even though silence would be in their best interests.

 

Touching on your comment about HCs possibly being less likely to support the Amicus brief (because they have guaranteed contracts) I would say two things.

 

Firstly, the very fact of having guaranteed contracts could theoretically make HCs more likely to being truthful in their comments simply because they don't fear retribution. So you could argue that the guaranteed contract could have either effect… more or less likely to support the Amicus. They might support the Amicus because they want better working conditions for their coaching staffs for instance.

 

On the other hand, HCs have to consider how if they state a position publicly, how that statement would be taken by ownership, the coaching staff and also by the players. By speaking on the brief, a HC has a good chance of upsetting one or more of these three groups.

 

It's possible that Gailey, like Belichick, simply does not want to go on the record and so Modkins was tasked with making a statement.

 

It's easy to understand why a coach wouldn't want to make a statement about the Amicus.

 

So then, what would compel a coach to make a public statement on the Amicus?

 

I think generally that most coaches would be smart enough to withhold making statements for or against any position unless put up to it by the ownership. Really, the coaches have little to gain and more to lose by commenting publicly because they're bound to alienate someone. If a coach is gonna speak he's gonna have to pick his poison.

 

No coach in their right mind would speak in favor of the Amicus because they would incur the wrath of the owner.

 

Conversely, they might speak against the Amicus to curry favor with their owner… but at the possible expense of alienating the coaching staff and players.

 

IMO, the only ones who would speak are those coaches who feel pressure either implicitly or explicitly, to disavow the Amicus.

 

Personally, I believe that many of the staffs that disavowed the Amicus did so to cover their asses and protect themselves from the wrath of management. I think it's also possible that in some cases, ownership asked the staffs to disavow the Amicus as a litmus test for their loyalty with an implicit threat attached.

 

 

 

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

. . . your claim that they coaches side with the players becuase of lockout clauses in their contracts cannot be true.

This is an example of "knocking down straw men." My only prior posts in this thread were post #s 30, 36 and 39. Although I can be pretty long-winded at times, those three were short. They contain no such claim.

[Doc]

Personally, I believe that many of the staffs that disavowed the Amicus did so to cover their asses and protect themselves from the wrath of management. I think it's also possible that in some cases, ownership asked the staffs to disavow the Amicus as a litmus test for their loyalty with an implicit threat attached.

You make some good points SJBF, but again as I said, it was dumb for the coaches to file the brief, especially in favor of the players. It accomplished nothing except for likely angering their bosses.

[K Gun Special]

You make some good points SJBF, but again as I said, it was dumb for the coaches to file the brief, especially in favor of the players. It accomplished nothing except for likely angering their bosses.

 

Thats not true. It highlights their plight in that owners with millions in their pockets are stiffing the coaching staff, many of whom need those paychecks to stay afloat. You know the position coaches not making more than $50,000 a year.

 

Oh yea and this whole lockout thingy is preventing them from doing their jobs.

 

So they filed an amicus brief asking that Nelson's ruling be upheld so they can get back to work.