Ongoing CBA discussions

Sorry bro, but you don't negotiate over the table about 1 billion dollars on "good faith" or "trust me". If you make the claim of losing profits, you better be prepared to back it up to the fullest.The NFL agreed to show five years of league-wide profitability data to the union -- and that the offer was rejected.
The NFL's proposal included:
• audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005 to 2009, based on individual club statements;
• the number of teams that have seen a shift in profitability in that span;
• an independent auditor to examine the data.

The information the NFLPA is asking for isn't even shared between the individual NFL teams. What the NFLPA is asking for is complete BS and has never been provided in any previous CBA negotiations. It's just a strawman by the NFLPA that has many (including you) buying it. Demaurice Smith knew where he was taking these negotiations, he just had to put up the front of negotiating in "good faith" so fans that are blindly loyal to the players would be sympathetic (read; buy his load of crap).

How the owners made their money is irrelevant. Should we talk about how Haynesworth made his money and how he performed in "good faith".

Not sure where you getting that from.

Listen to D. Smith responds to Parish video. He says the NFL wants them to write them a check for 500 million the first year and escalates up to 1 billion in the final year. So I have no idea about that 185 million you are referring to. Sounds like smoke being blown up your people's asses.Before you spout off, do some research, you're making yourself look bad:

Lockout, court cases put popular NFL on hold - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nfllabor)

From the link:
By Friday afternoon, when mediator George Cohen declared “no useful purpose would be served” by asking the parties to keep negotiating, it appeared the NFL and union were about $185 million apart on how much owners should get up front each season for certain operating expenses before splitting the rest of the revenues with players. That’s a far cry from the $1 billion that separated the sides for months.

Do what? Last time I checked, the total revenue in the NFL is 9 billion. The owners get 1 billion off the top for expenses. They then share the revenue 50/50. Where are you getting your numbers from? Again, do your homework or you FAIL....the players get almost 60% of revenue under the 2006 CBA.

NFL owners on verge of lockout with players in labor feud - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_17525555)

LOLOLOLOL. Probably the funniest post of all. You realize the owners can't bring in scabs. The owners are locking the players out, not the other way around. This isn't a player strike. The NFL wouldn't survive 2 years. How many people watched the NFL back when scabs played? Nobody. Would TV hand out 4 billion a year for scabs? Nope. The sole reason people watch the NFL is because the talent level is the best in the world. Take into account these things if this lockout remained:

1) They have no revenue coming in (TV contracts, Tickets, parking, merchandise, vendors, ad sponsors).....all gone.

2) They'd still have to pay maintenance/expenses/taxes/etc on their current infrastructure.

3) There would be no union to represent players so no future pro-player would work for them besides scabs.

Also, once the NFL closed shop, new investors would arise and form a new league to bring that talent over. That would become the new NFL and the league the future college kids go to. Your theory of the NFL would survive is laughable at best.You may want to read this. History is a great teacher.

National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Players_Association)

- Actually people did watch the replacement games, far better than the NFLPA "All Star" games.
- The TV contracts are already negotiated, if the NFL plays games it doesn't matter who is on the field.
- There will be revenue coming in, people will still go to games. Number may be down, but revenue will still come in....and with greatly reduced player costs the owners will likely make a better percentage of profit.
- With no union, anyone could play that wants to, scab, former NFL player, or previous NFLPA member who wants to cross the picket line.

Wait until the players miss a game check or two and you can reply to this old thread letting me know how right I was. Trust me the NFL isn't going anywhere.


Pathologist says Waters' brain tissue had deteriorated - NFL - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2734941)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/sports/football/06worker.html
John Mackey: From The NFL To Dementia - CBS Evening News - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/28/eveningnews/main2738666.shtml)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sports/football/30dementia.html
Marshall's torments not likely to fade - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/saraceno/2007-01-31-wilber-marshall_x.htm)

Nah, they don't share any risks at all. Nope.We're talking financial risks. And no one is forcing the players to take the risk of getting on the field.

In other words, you can't show (or prove) to me that the NFL owners profits are declining. Hey, I guess that makes 2 parties who can't. You and the Owners. I'm not the one making the claim, you are. (as are the owners) I think you fail to understand how the "burden of proof" works. It falls on the person making the claim.The Packers profits were, and that's documented fact. Other than being publicly held the Packers are not an unusual franchise financially

Finances Show Profit, But Troubling Trends Remain (http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Finances-Show-Profit-But-Troubling-Trends-Remain/131dac2e-ce57-4798-aade-384c565d01fb)

Again with the wrong numbers. Can you document anything you are saying? I'm providing sources to all my stuff, and you haven't backed one statement up with any facts. Hey, I guess that's how negotiating with you and the owners work. Just take your word on it. Also, there really are no financial risks for NFL owners these days. If this were the 80's then you might have a point, but the NFL is a revenue monster. Even a monkey running a team can profit.You haven't provided crap for documentation and what you did provide was wrong.....I guess you and the NFLPA have something in common.

Slingin Sammy,

I'm with you on the fact that just about everyone watched the NFL even when the first strike occurred. Don't get me wrong there were people who complained about the play on the field but for me as long as the talent level was all the same it was just as good.

You guys watch college games, why? because the talent level is roughly the same and the money is not getting in the way of the play. I don't think I've ever heard fans here complaining about a college game claiming their scabs.... because thats where our scabs are going to come from. Atleast the majority will. People act like the teams doors are going to be open for players that have no talent at all ie; the couch potato.

Damn Sammy you brought the rain

We need a mediator to settle things down here. LOL.

That's why I'm here.

NC_Skins, this is just one fan's view, but I'm a fan of the Redskins first and foremost. Don't get me wrong I like the players in the NFL, but would I care if the Skins had to bring in scabs while the NFLPA sat out? Nope. I don't watch the NFL or the Skins because of the players, I watch it because of the game. Only a small percentage of fans watch the game for the players, the majority of NFL fans are loyal to a team above everything else.

^ Game, set, match. ;)

This is exactly how I feel. I'm a team fan. Players come and go but I'm loyal to the team. Maybe getting rid of the CBA or changing it will enable teams to keep their draft picks longer and force teams to develope talent vs looking at other teams cast offs.

Funny how this thread mirrors the real life situation. A lot of half informed opinions and misdirected anger. Good job boys.

Since the CBA discussions are over so is this thread.

I'm re-opening the thread, but let's try to keep things civil going forward, ok?

NC_Skins, this is just one fan's view, but I'm a fan of the Redskins first and foremost. Don't get me wrong I like the players in the NFL, but would I care if the Skins had to bring in scabs while the NFLPA sat out? Nope. I don't watch the NFL or the Skins because of the players, I watch it because of the game. Only a small percentage of fans watch the game for the players, the majority of NFL fans are loyal to a team above everything else.

Do you remember the scab games from '87? They were pretty bad. Watching Joe the truck driver playing QB is no fun.

Trust me, whether you realize it or not, you watch the NFL because it offers the best talent and therefore the highest level of competition. Talent does matter.

I'm re-opening the thread, but let's try to keep things civil going forward, ok?

You.......old softee.....