Ongoing CBA discussions

This HAD to happen I think. Even if a deal is made via mediation & the suits are dropped, both sides needed to take this step. The owners got themselves in this by agreeing to this deal in 06. The players don't want to give up something for no apparent reason. The courts, if only the threat, are the only way to decide this.

I am not unhappy about it. I think it could lead to some creative solutions & avert some bad ideas, like the 18 game season. If we come out of this w/the same CBA & an 18 game season, it will really have been a wasted opportunity IMO.

Can I get an Amen?!

This HAD to happen I think. Even if a deal is made via mediation & the suits are dropped, both sides needed to take this step. The owners got themselves in this by agreeing to this deal in 06. The players don't want to give up something for no apparent reason. The courts, if only the threat, are the only way to decide this.

I am not unhappy about it. I think it could lead to some creative solutions & avert some bad ideas, like the 18 game season. If we come out of this w/the same CBA & an 18 game season, it will really have been a wasted opportunity IMO.

If this "HAD" to happen, then why The 24 hour and 7 day extensions? This did not HAVE to happen. A deal could have been worked out if both sides wanted to work one out. The problem is, they didn't. They wanted to give the appearance of wanting a deal. I'm disgusted with both sides, but mostly the players side, specifically demaurice smith. the guy strikes me as a total d bag.

If this "HAD" to happen, then why The 24 hour and 7 day extensions? This did not HAVE to happen. A deal could have been worked out if both sides wanted to work one out. The problem is, they didn't. They wanted to give the appearance of wanting a deal. I'm disgusted with both sides, but mostly the players side, specifically demaurice smith. the guy strikes me as a total d bag.

Exactly my feelings.

An 18 games schedule is ****ing stupid in the first place, but the players can't and won't get 50% of the revenue

I hope when this is said and done we get 18 games.

If this "HAD" to happen, then why The 24 hour and 7 day extensions? This did not HAVE to happen. A deal could have been worked out if both sides wanted to work one out. The problem is, they didn't. They wanted to give the appearance of wanting a deal. I'm disgusted with both sides, but mostly the players side, specifically demaurice smith. the guy strikes me as a total d bag.You crystallized my thoughts eloquently, especially the D. Smith part. Here's the guy's bio. This explains a lot. The NFL players really f-ed up bringing this guy on. D. Smith is taking this to his comfort zone, the courts. That isn't how businesses function profitably.

Attorney Smith elected to succeed Upshaw as NFLPA executive director (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f469df&template=without-video&confirm=true)

Let me add a few things;
- The NFLPA walked away from the table, not the owners.
- A majority of the issues were agreed upon (mostly in the NFLPAs favor), and the owners came way off their initial additional $ 1B "off-the-top". The final amount in dispute was more like $ 185M.
- This was stated by NFLPA folks and I heard it this morning from NFLPA team reps. The contention is that the players aren't going to agree to ANY "salary reduction" or additional amount off-the-top unless the owners completely open the books of all 32 NFL teams.

I've heard little but rhetoric and name-calling from the NFLPA side, the owners were very specific as to what was offered. It sure sounds like the owners put a very fair deal on the table and the NFLPA is simply trying to gain leverage in the courts. F the NFLPA, F D. Smith.

I don't want to hear that the NFL players are "partners" in the business of the NFL. They are employees, very talented, very well paid employees, but still employees. For any of you siding with the players, let me ask the following:
- If the economy hits another downturn are the NFL players going to give back some of their salaries to off-set the reduced profitability of the teams?
- If a small market team that is seeing reduced profits is the NFLPA going to provide some sort of compensation for that team.
- If a new stadium is built and that particular team is having issues making the payments, is the NFLPA going to make concessions to help.

We all know damn well the answer to all those questions is flat out "NO". How about the players realize that close to 60% off revenue is way too much and the NFL offered a fair deal. This is all about D. Smith not wanting to look like he lost ground in his first negotiation with the NFL. No question if he went back to the NFL players and sold this deal to them they would take it and we'd be back in business. BHA is 100% right D. Smith is simply a douche-lawyer with an NFL sized ego. He needs to realize his job is not to squeeze every last dime he can out of the NFL owners. He needs to look out for the players and also protect the golden-goose business that puts food on the table for thousands of people.

FRPGL - Because John Mara is an even keeled guy? That is a great reason.
Rather than basing your opinion on emotion or because you like this guy over that guy, how about base your opinion on facts?
Both sides have agreed this whole thing came down to one thing.....the owners claimed they lost money. Based on that claim they were asking for concessions from the players and basing thier entire argument. The players said that is fine and if you owners are losing money we will gladly give back some of our take. But before we do that blindly we need the owners to OPEN YOUR BOOKS AND PROVE YOU ARE LOSING MONEY!!!!!!!!
I do not care how even keeled John MAra is, the man crush you have on Roger Goddell or how much you can not stand DeSmith, base your opinion on the facts of the disagreement points and not a popularity contest.
Both side came out with prepared speechs today, those speeches mean nothing.
They are political bullshit.
The owners opened the door to to the claim they are losing money. They made a mistake because in order prove their point they have to show the proof. You can not just take a persons word on it in negotiations.

Hey donkey. READ. I blamed the the wasting of time in the last two weeks on the players since a person who I believe is pretty honest assessed that the players were simply going through the motions. That's it. I never said anything about what you're talking about. By the way, I agree the owners needed to open the books. Oh and by the way...they offered to. The players were asking for more than they reasonably needed. There's plenty of blame to go around. But at the end of the day the players wasted everyone's time and provided false hope by not negotiating in good faith it seems.

Do any of you people actual pay attention to facts or do you chose a side and just stick your head in the sand in hopes to ignore any of the real facts going on? It bewilders me that people are still spouting off rhetoric when the facts are plain and simple.

You crystallized my thoughts eloquently, especially the D. Smith part. Here's the guy's bio. This explains a lot. The NFL players really f-ed up bringing this guy on. D. Smith is taking this to his comfort zone, the courts. That isn't how businesses function profitably.

Yeah, because those asshats representing the NFL corporation are any better? To me, many of the issues with players stem from pure jealousy on the amounts they make and the ability to have leverage in their work place. Get over it, we all would like that ability but the fact is we are expendable, they are not.


Let me add a few things;
- The NFLPA walked away from the table, not the owners.

Newsflash: The OWNERS opted out of the CBA, NOT the players. Also, the players walked away with the owners showing no signs of giving them the info they wanted. They had no option. Did you not read this thread? If you had, you'd notice where I posted the federal mediator said this.

"The parties have not achieved an overall agreement, nor have they been able to resolve the strongly held competing positions that separated them on core issues, mediator George Cohen said. "No useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time."

So why stay at the table when it's obvious nothing was going to get done. Why keep prolonging something you know the sides aren't going to agree. The NFLPA isn't going to take a 1 billion in salary cut without seeing books. End of Story. You don't negotiated business deals on "trust me". You base them on numbers and facts. Both of which the NFL does not want to disclose.



- A majority of the issues were agreed upon (mostly in the NFLPAs favor), and the owners came way off their initial additional $ 1B "off-the-top". The final amount in dispute was more like $ 185M.

I can't repeat this enough. 1696 players are splitting 4 billion and 32 owners are splitting 5 billion. Are you seriously still siding with the owners?...lol Mind boggling. Yeah, sure looks like it's in favor of NFLPA. /sarcasm off

- This was stated by NFLPA folks and I heard it this morning from NFLPA team reps. The contention is that the players aren't going to agree to ANY "salary reduction" or additional amount off-the-top unless the owners completely open the books of all 32 NFL teams.

The owners broke the current CBA and are claiming of declining profits. The burden is on THEM to back up that claim. The only way you can do that is showing your books. Not writing two figures down on a sheet of paper and telling the players to "trust them".

I've heard little but rhetoric and name-calling from the NFLPA side, the owners were very specific as to what was offered. It sure sounds like the owners put a very fair deal on the table and the NFLPA is simply trying to gain leverage in the courts. F the NFLPA, F D. Smith.

People hear what they want to hear.

"[Richardson] was extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton," a source said. "[Richardson] was the only person on either side who was contentious. Everybody else was respectful. They might have said, 'I disagree with your point,' but at least they were respectful. [Richardson] was not."

Apparently, Richardson was particularly sarcastic when Manning started to talk about players' safety. At one point, Richardson evidently said, "What do you know about player safety?"
Jerry Richardson Insults Peyton Manning, Drew Brees: Panthers Owner Rips Star Quarterbacks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/jerry-richardson-peyton-manning-drew-brees_n_822988.html)


It may seem like a "fair deal" to average people that have no concept of this money or leverage. The reality of it is when the owners ask them to take a billion dollar cut, you better have numbers to back it up. It's funny you complain about the NFLPA trying to gain leverage, but you totally ignored the leverage the NFL owners have been trying to get since 2006.

1) Tried to get exempt from rules governing monopolies via Supreme Court (they failed)

2) Signed TV contract enabling them to get paid even during lock out. (they failed)

So you have no problem with them getting leverage long before they even opted out of the CBA, but have issue with NFLPA gaining leverage as it's LAST recourse? Hey, don't let those things called facts get in your way though.

I don't want to hear that the NFL players are "partners" in the business of the NFL. They are employees, very talented, very well paid employees, but still employees. For any of you siding with the players, let me ask the following:

This is where most of the ignorance comes into play when discussing this topic. I'm sorry, but do you understand that the NFL has a product/service? That product/service ARE the players. They aren't normal employees. Normal employees would be the trainers, the team secretary and PR guy, and even the coaches. Why? Because you can replace them easily without the talent level dropping off, which is the whole reason the NFL exists. The talent level. Grasp that concept and then you'll be able understand the situation in it's entirety. We don't watch the games to see Fed Ex field. We don't watch the games to see the hot dog vendor. We don't watch the games to see David Donovan give legal representation. We don't watch the games to see Mike Shannahan call time outs. We watch the game because of the PLAYERS. The only reason the NFL exists.



- If the economy hits another downturn are the NFL players going to give back some of their salaries to off-set the reduced profitability of the teams?

Are the owners going to give back some of their salaries to reduce the costs for fans? Nope. Why would you expect them to do the same for owners.

- If a small market team that is seeing reduced profits is the NFLPA going to provide some sort of compensation for that team.

Is Dan Snyder going to lower ticket costs when his team does shitty? Nope. Is he going to raise them if we make the playoffs? Yep. Do you think they care? Nope.


- If a new stadium is built and that particular team is having issues making the payments, is the NFLPA going to make concessions to help.

Show me where a team is having difficulties making stadium payments. I will give you season tickets in club level for life if you can prove this.

Also, you do realize the owners strong arm the community into providing them with tax cuts and funding their new stadiums at the expense of the tax payers. It's either that or they threaten to leave.

This is all about D. Smith not wanting to look like he lost ground in his first negotiation with the NFL. No question if he went back to the NFL players and sold this deal to them they would take it and we'd be back in business. BHA is 100% right D. Smith is simply a douche-lawyer with an NFL sized ego. He needs to realize his job is not to squeeze every last dime he can out of the NFL owners. He needs to look out for the players and also protect the golden-goose business that puts food on the table for thousands of people.

If you had the slightest idea or any facts to back up anything you said, then you might have a point but it's obvious you don't like D. Smith for whatever reason and have chosen the side of the owners. I also see a lot of resentment in average joes over the players. The sheer jealousy of them having leverage (and salaries) in a way they could never dream of makes the average fan foam at the mouth. The NFL exists soley because of the service those players provide. They are the product. You on the other hand, had no leverage or bargaining chip to hold your employers accountable. You act is if they are asking for more. That isn't the case. They want the system to remain the same, it's the owners who are asking for me. I suggest you recognize that main fact.

By the way, I agree the owners needed to open the books. Oh and by the way...they offered to. The players were asking for more than they reasonably needed.

That's not true. The owners were being selective of what they offered to show. Unfortunately, when you are asking for 1 billion of revenue back, you better be able to show it in ALL the numbers. Revenue - Expenses

Stop parroting that the NFL owners have agreed to share information. It's false. IN fact, the reason they don't want information shared is because they are in competition with other owners about revenue sharing.

Transparency is the buzzword in this round of the NFL labor fight, with the owners sticking by their long-standing policy of not opening their financial books — at least not completely — and the players demanding to see every line-by-line expense.

In NFL labor fight, a books review means a lot - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/09/sports/la-sp-secret-information-nfl-20110310)

Hey donkey. READ. I blamed the the wasting of time in the last two weeks on the players since a person who I believe is pretty honest assessed that the players were simply going through the motions. That's it. I never said anything about what you're talking about. By the way, I agree the owners needed to open the books. Oh and by the way...they offered to. The players were asking for more than they reasonably needed. There's plenty of blame to go around. But at the end of the day the players wasted everyone's time and provided false hope by not negotiating in good faith it seems.

Danm you got your panties in a knot. LOL!
John Mara (owners) and the players are directly involved in the negotiations and both have a big financial interest in the outcome. I would not believe either side 100% of the way at this point. It has turned into a smear campaign by both sides since they did not meet this initial deadline. The upset media and the rabid fans like you are so upset that a deal was not struck on March 11th that you are looking to blame someone.
Turn off the NFL Network and go outside. There is still six months to get this deal done and it will get done.
As FreddyG stated correctly this had to happen. Now it is in the hands of an impartial Judge that will make impartial and correct decisions on discovery issues and most likely open the books to the relevant NFL income and get this deal worked out.
Stop believing everything you hear on TV.