Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 FIFTY percent, Gordio? Guaranteed contracts or no, the players would stay out until Doomsday. And yes, John, Smith has done am impressive job of fence-mending. I'm also interested to see how the new Alumni Association plays into it. Bruce Laird was one of the NFLPA's most outspoken critics; with the Fourth and Goal merger, has he officially gone over to the league's side? And how much pull does his group really have? haven't spoken to Laird, so not sure on that end. and you and KRC are absolutely correct. there's still a long way to go on the retired players front. i'd expect Smith, at some point, to announce that one of the concessions he's also looking for is including a new pension formula with the NFL ... now that's a tough one. the union's argument, which has some (stress: some) merit, is that the NFL also has a stake in the pension plan, and also needs to step up to the plate. and this is where things get complicated and could muddy up labor talks, because the NFL does have some leverage on this point, and realizes that Smith is up against the wall on this one. jw
Rubes Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I'd just like to interject that this is one of the most intelligent and entertaining threads I've ever read here. Thanks all.
KRC Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 And yes, John, Smith has done am impressive job of fence-mending. I'm also interested to see how the new Alumni Association plays into it. Bruce Laird was one of the NFLPA's most outspoken critics; with the Fourth and Goal merger, has he officially gone over to the league's side? And how much pull does his group really have? It remains to be seen how the merger will impact retired players. There are some outspoken people associated with Fourth and Goal, but they will only have six of the 15 reformed board seats. I am wondering if this is going to mute their voice. The Alumni Association still wants to support children's charities, so I wonder how much of the money raised will go to the players and not the children's charities. The Alumni Association has said that they are scaling back and moving more towards focusing on the retired players, but I have not seen actual numbers as to how far they are scaling back. I think that stuff still needs to be worked out.
Gordio Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 FIFTY percent, Gordio? Guaranteed contracts or no, the players would stay out until Doomsday. And yes, John, Smith has done am impressive job of fence-mending. I'm also interested to see how the new Alumni Association plays into it. Bruce Laird was one of the NFLPA's most outspoken critics; with the Fourth and Goal merger, has he officially gone over to the league's side? And how much pull does his group really have? You think the players are going to stay out to doomsday????? This is their livelyhood, these players are used to a certain lifestyle, a lifestyle that can not be supported by any other profession that they would have an opportunity to get into. As stated earlier, 50% might of been a bit low but it is certainly going to be closer to that figure then the figure they have now. I really do not see how you & John think the players have the upper hand here. The only way they come out on top is if there is infighting among the owners(which very well could happen). I really do not see how the retired players even factor into this. They have been ignored & put on the backburner for so many year but now they are going to be a force that tips the chips in the players favor????? I just do not see it.
GG Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 with all due respect Gordio, the only way the union will go for 50 percent is if all money (licensing fees, marketing fees) counts in the forumla. i don't see Smith as having the losing hand. it's the owners who have all come out and said they blew it during contract talks so they're the ones who will have to figure out how to establish a new one. while, yes, players won't be getting checks, don't disregard the amounts of money owners will be losing during a lockout. no TV contract, no suites, no hot-dog/beer money. and threat of having the union decertify, which would open the door to the introduction of anti-trust laws, which would lead to the potential of congressional oversight of football. ... there's a lot at stake on both sides. jw To take the contrarian side, I don't know if the owners would fear anti-trust rulings that much anymore. They'll point to the XFL, failed CFL in the US, and UFL as competitive models, and the fact that the NFL is doing nothing to stonewall those leagues. Their argument is the NFL is a natural monopoly, because the fans don't care for a watered down professional football league. The strongest legal support for the argument is the XFL, which had strong backing from another "sports" league and a major network contract, yet still failed. I'm guessing that everyone is watching the merchandise ruling that SCOTUS has decided to review. My guess is that the exclusivity deal the league has with its sponsors will pass, as there's ample precedent for it.
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Even though it was a bad deal for the owners, it gave them time to sign a new TV contract that guarantees money even if there is a work stoppage. It also gave the owners time to build up a war chest of money for each team to ride out any lockout. This is what many owners knew would happen which is why there was an opt out clause. The contract gave them labor peace for a couple of years and time to get ready. This is why so many owners voted for the CBA. i personally don't think the owners were looking that far ahead. i could be wrong, but the sense was that they had dodged a bullet on this one and settled what they thought was a "good deal." the fact that it was rushed through at the last minute, one major reason Mr. Wilson was against it, leads me to believe that they were willing to sign anything to simply have a deal. trouble was, the devil was in the details of the fine print, which no one -- including Mr. Wilson -- had time to read. and, from my perspective, it was rushed through because Kraft, Snyder and Jones were either in new stadiums or ready to build one, and they needed to keep the status quo of labor peace. and it was those three who applied pressure on Tagliabue to get the deal done. as i'm told, Tagliabue was in no position to wait on the matter. the fact that Mr. Wilson was painted as a "know-nothing," is also an indication that the owners thought this was a good deal and they were not looking ahead or building any type of a war chest. the best thing they did, i think, was include that out-clause. but i don't think anyone at that table ever figured they would be using it so quickly, particularly based on the responses that came out of that meeting. jw
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I'm not sure who has the upper hand. The players certainly seem by and large like a group that needs their big incomes to fund their lavish lifestyles. I could see their resolve crumbling if this goes very far. The owners on the other hand, well some of them claim to be losing money so what is their motivation to stay in business if they are truly losing money? Other owners are clearly making money so they would not want any kind of work stoppage. There very well could be a schism within ownership very similar to the one which got them into this situation in the first place. You could make a good argument for either side giving in first. I think that neither side wants a work stoppage and that there will be some horse trading going on. A lot of it is a ritualistic dance and I don't see it going very far. For all of us as fans, hopefully the two sides can head it off at the pass.
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 They have been ignored & put on the backburner for so many year but now they are going to be a force that tips the chips in the players favor????? I just do not see it. they're not exactly a force that's going to be at the negotiating table. but if they fall on Smith's side, the also won't be a hindrance, and that can't be understated. by bringing the retired players on board, then the union can finally produce a common front, and not have critics from the chorus chime in against it. it doesn't tip the scales in the union's favor entirely, but it helps by not being a distraction. jw
Lori Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 You think the players are going to stay out to doomsday????? This is their livelyhood, these players are used to a certain lifestyle, a lifestyle that can not be supported by any other profession that they would have an opportunity to get into. As stated earlier, 50% might of been a bit low but it is certainly going to be closer to that figure then the figure they have now. I really do not see how you & John think the players have the upper hand here. The only way they come out on top is if there is infighting among the owners(which very well could happen). I really do not see how the retired players even factor into this. They have been ignored & put on the backburner for so many year but now they are going to be a force that tips the chips in the players favor????? I just do not see it. I admit we're getting a little sidetracked on the retired-players issue, because that's where Smith has focused the bulk of his attention so far. (Also because it's a subject near and dear to a few of us.) Their fate most likely wouldn't be a deal-breaker on a new CBA. KRC's right, though: Smith doesn't need them sniping at him from the side while he's trying to face off with the owners' well-paid legal staff. The players currently get 59.5 percent of total revenues, and the owners are the ones scrambling to redo the deal. What possible reason could the NFLPA have to agree to a deep cut in that number, without MAJOR concessions elsewhere? This isn't the auto or newspaper industry, where management can tell the workers, "Accept this new deal or we're going under" -- the players know the owners are making billions of dollars. So, I just don't see that percentage dropping by a significant amount.
stuckincincy Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) personally, i think it's the wrong play to draw the media into this, because once we reporters start taking sides (and we'll take sides if players stop talking to us), then the union loses its momentum.that's not to say that i won't quote a player about stadium funding, etc. i'm sure that will be one of the union's more significant "talking points" going forward. yet i don't want the topic of stadium funding to come up in an interview that has nothing to do with the CBA. jw Somebody wrote a book about sports teams and public financing. IIRC, the Hamilton County - Bengals deal topped his list as the worst ever. This season, Hamilton County will no longer get rent from Mike Brown. They will have to pay him to occupy the stadium. Unless the contract stipulates that in case of a strike, those payments are voided, I think the County will be happy to see them walk. Edited July 1, 2009 by stuckincincy
Delete This Account Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I'm not sure who has the upper hand. The players certainly seem by and large like a group that needs their big incomes to fund their lavish lifestyles. I could see their resolve crumbling if this goes very far. The owners on the other hand, well some of them claim to be losing money so what is their motivation to stay in business if they are truly losing money? Other owners are clearly making money so they would not want any kind of work stoppage. There very well could be a schism within ownership very similar to the one which got them into this situation in the first place. You could make a good argument for either side giving in first. I think that neither side wants a work stoppage and that there will be some horse trading going on. A lot of it is a ritualistic dance and I don't see it going very far. For all of us as fans, hopefully the two sides can head it off at the pass. don't know if it's just the players with lavish lifestyles. jerry jones, who's only industry is running the cowboys, has plenty at stake with the new stadium opening and all. there is also the negative perception that comes with labor strife, which could very well lead to the networks seeking their own givebacks when it comes to tv deals. this is high-stakes stuff for both sides. jw ADD: and thanks Rubes. trying to keep this as open-ended as possible without resorting to name-calling and trolling as happens "occassionally" in these threads. trouble is, as interested as i am in this topic and discussion, i'm trying to get my work done here as it's my last day before vacation.
stuckincincy Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I'm trying to get my work done here as it's my last day before vacation. With a new camera!
Lori Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd find any trolls in this thread -- their eyes would have glazed over at the subject matter long before now. Have to say, it's a refreshing change from the usual offseason frivolity. Enjoy that vacation, JW, and hoist a pint or two for me. (Shouldn't be a problem, right? ) Oh, and Happy Canada Day!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Well now, he's a greedy, senile old coot and "didn't understand it." And he only voted it down because it would have cost him money. Whereas the other owners were only out to prevent a work stoppage. Or something stupid like that. Actually he said flat out that the reason he didn't vote for it was because he didn't understand it. The other idiot owners didn't either, but that doesn't mean Ralph did. Ralph simply didn't understand what he was signing and didn't want to agree with something he didn't understand. That was the smart move, not the fact that he saw how bad a deal this was.
KRC Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd find any trolls in this thread -- their eyes would have glazed over at the subject matter long before now. Now you did it. I blame you if they show up.
GG Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 Actually he said flat out that the reason he didn't vote for it was because he didn't understand it. The other idiot owners didn't either, but that doesn't mean Ralph did. Ralph simply didn't understand what he was signing and didn't want to agree with something he didn't understand. That was the smart move, not the fact that he saw how bad a deal this was. What he said.
GG Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd find any trolls in this thread -- their eyes would have glazed over at the subject matter long before now. Never stops people from posting on the evil board, no matter how far out of depth ...
stuckincincy Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Actually he said flat out that the reason he didn't vote for it was because he didn't understand it. The other idiot owners didn't either, but that doesn't mean Ralph did. Ralph simply didn't understand what he was signing and didn't want to agree with something he didn't understand. That was the smart move, not the fact that he saw how bad a deal this was. IIRC, the new CBA was tossed on the table with 45 minutes to read, and vote yea or nay. Like the current congressional majority does. Mike Brown voted against it. When it comes to money, I don't think there's a sharper tack among the Gang of 32. Ralph may have correctly taken Brown's cue.
VOR Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 and, from my perspective, it was rushed through because Kraft, Snyder and Jones were either in new stadiums or ready to build one, and they needed to keep the status quo of labor peace. and it was those three who applied pressure on Tagliabue to get the deal done. as i'm told, Tagliabue was in no position to wait on the matter. It was rushed through because the NFLPA had already pushed-back the start of FA several times and said they wouldn't do it again. Had they not agreed-upon a new CBA, the Cowboys, Redskins, and the Pats would have had to cut players left and right to get under it.
Lori Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Now you did it. I blame you if they show up. There are ways to deal with them if they do. And yes, I think their use would be warranted to keep this discussion alive. Agreed to a point, Kelly. But Ralph was arguing that they should give the deal a closer reading before signing off on it, and saying that he needed more time than the 45 minutes alluded to by Cincy. That, to me, suggests that he'd already seen something he couldn't agree to. JMO.
Recommended Posts