8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

The main problem here is trust. There is none, and it's hard to bargain or compromise when there isn't trust.



This is what should happen. The owners should open their books to a third party financial firm to allow them to review the books. They could make it so that other owner's (or the public) wouldn't have access to them. That way the players can then trust the owners in this negotiation and proceed from there. It's hard to ask somebody to "trust me" over a billion dollars when in fact many of these guys are notorious for making money in shady ways.

They offered to open the books to a third party audit and the NFLPA refused. They wanted to look them over themselves, most likely to look for leverage.

NFL's Statement On NFLPA Decertification - Battle Red Blog (http://www.battleredblog.com/2011/3/11/2045119/nfls-statement-on-nflpa-decertification)
The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.

Smith is all about leverage and winning. Like the comment I posted before alluded to, the players are taught to be competitive about everything are rewarded with positive reinforcement for having a competitive spirit. Winning is the only thing that matters. They're even told to compete with their own teammates.

That might be why they gravitated towards a ruthless litigation lawyer instead of a corporate lawyer that understands negotiation as well as the concept of give and take. They thought "hey we plug this guy in, knock around a few heads and the owners will be begging us to accept an even better deal."

Most of the owners on the other hand, while competitive are still business men/women first and most of them understand negotiation. That's probably where the pyscho ex-Girlfriend comment came from. They're trying to conduct business (albeit shady business at times) and Smith is just going on and on with rhetoric and threats of winning in court.

I'm already a record on repeat but it's the same pattern with the NFLPA, particularly their top two lawyers. Show up to court appointed functions, look at offer for a second, balk at offer, storm out, and then make over the top statements to the media.

Personally I think the funniest thing about Smith is how quickly he can go from Gloater to Victim.
DeMaurice Smith Has It Backwards - Bleeding Green Nation (http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2011/5/17/2175403/demaurice-smith-has-it-backwards)

First that 59% should be 53%. You forget that the owners take 1 billion off the top so they are essentially splitting 8 billion, not the 9 that is brought in.

Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses.

My personal belief is this without seeing the books. There is absolutely no way that player income is the reason they are having loss of profits even though revenue has increase annually. My guess is the reason why owners are losing profits is because owners are bad businessmen. Let's take a look at who's losing money.

Al Davis - Raiders?
Wayne Weaver - Jaguars?
Mike Brown - Bengals?

Wonder why? Bad business decisions from owners?

NFL Labor Talks Hinge on Growth Issue - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148712424300234.html)

This is a good read. Talks about how the NFL has probably hit it's ceiling for revenue and it's probably right. Inflation is sky high, and look no further than the price of gold to see that.



Sounds to me if owners want more money to expand their empire, they should be making better business decisions instead of stupid ones. Nobody told Snyder to set the market for DTs at 15million a year and a 100 million contract. Nobody twisted Al's arm to sign Russell to a 40 mil guaranteed contract, or any other over paid talent he's brought to that team. Should players take a cut because owners are making bad decisions? Hell no.

Again the semantics over who opted out of the CBA. Maybe I should just play your fiddle and say "I don't care that the Players opted out of the CBA." What point of the players leaving 6 hrs prior to the deadline to file their decertification and not staying, not requesting and extension, and not even offering a counter offer makes the owners the bad guys who wanted to opt out of the CBA? I'm sorry but to put it in your words..." I don't care that the players opted out of the CBA."

You mention "proof". This illustrious "proof" that they are losing money. Is the revenue sharing increasing every year because they are making more money or is it increasing because of agreements in the CBA? The CAP grew each year so I presume the revenue sharing would grow.

But I think the majority of the fans are still missing the point that there are teams out there who are not doing well, not because of their owners (as you put it) being bad businessmen, the Bills have issue's with attendance, the Panthers have issue's with attendance, the Jaguars have issue's with attendance, and I'm betting there are a few others. I'll admit there are teams who are doing well like the Skins and Cowboys, but if these teams are taking a good portion off the top of their income to share with the lesser fortunate teams, then there is the fact the economy is bad and I'm betting more people are turning in season tickets or not renewing their season tickets due to the economy. But go ahead and argue that. I recently posted a thread on another site in which many fans were saying just that in regards to their Redskin season tickets. Hmmm, I guess the NFL would not be losing money.

Season Ticket Renewals (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?344991-Season-Ticket-Renewals)

EDIT: I did not post the thread. Sorry. Meant to say I posted here a thread from another site.

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially

The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses. .

So the Owners opting out backed the players in a corner but you have "no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA". You keep moving the target.

As Tripp said, the "open your books" issue is giant red herring. As part of the old CBA, the books are audited by a third party. If I understand you, however, your biggest problem is that a bunch of billionaires are crying "poor" and not allowing the players to see how much they spent on towel cleaning. Again, as Tripp said, idealogically, that's a hard sell for the owners, D-Smith knows it and is playing it up regardless of whether it is a sound legal theory. Doesn't matter that what D-Smith is asking for is legally unprecedented, it makes a great sound bite and joe-schmoe is bound to sympathize with sticking it to the owners.

My biggest beef with the players is not that they are seeking to increase/protect their share - both they and the owners are entilted to do so. Rather, its the deceptive manner in which they are trying to do so (i.e. the illegal decertification). I blame that mainly on D-Smith. He is nothing more than a high-priced schlock ambulance chaser - He just chases Mercedes instead.

When you don't have the law, argue the facts, when you don't have the facts, baffle'em with BS. Well, D-Smith is down to BS. His characterizations are consistently one off the accurate truth, his appeals are not to the law but to fans emotions. Doing mainly civil defense work, I see his type all the time and they piss me off simply 'cause you have to work twice as hard refuting all the BS rather than focusing on the issues. They throw everything against the wall, accurate or not, in hopes something will stick. He is a pile o' crap with a mouth. "You refuted what I said yesterday, I'll just move the target over here even if, in doing so, I indirectly contradict everything I said yesterday."

Sorry rant over. The owners opted out 'cause they wanted a bigger piece of the pie. The players got a great deal and don't want to change it. Cut the baby in the middle and move on (which is what the owners March 11th reportedly did). To me, that's the bottom line.

My beef is as follows.

Owners and Goodell:
- Complain about the split and talk of the players getting 60% when in fact they only get 53% which is less then the NHL, NBA, and I'm pretty sure the MLB.

- Only a small portion of NFL contracts are guaranteed so aside from paying less in salary then the other three leagues the owners can terminate contracts only owing a fraction of what the other leagues pay.

- Goodell talks of fans being excited about the prospect of an 18 game season because the preseason games don't meet the standard set by the NFL for quality. The reality is the majority of fans don't want an 18 game season because they have little interest in increasing the risk of injury to their key players.

- Also sad is the fact that part of the reason the fans hate preaseason games is they have to pay full price. Common sense dictates that the owners should stop charging regular season prices, Owners on the other hand don't want to loose that money and instead propose two extra games even if it means putting key players at risk.

- The total revenue earned by the NFL has increased in a recession ergo proving that for the foreseeable future the NFL is recession proof.

- These stadiums that the owners claim they need more money to build are mostly being paid for by tax payers and cities. Not the owners or the league. IIRC the Bidwells paid something like $9 million for their stadium after cost were covered by the city of Phoenix and the University of Phoenix with sponsorship.

-Using the TV deals and exclusivity contracts as a rainy day fund.

- Threatening the fans with essentially an anarchy system. 'No draft, no parity, etc'

NFLPA, particularly De Smith

- Rather then engage in serious negotiations the NFLPA is simply trying to bully it's way through the courts. They are more interested in power mongering and attempting to acquire leverage rather then act like adults and work towards a CBA thats good for everyone. Collectively the NFLPA has virtually zero idea as to how to approach negotiation. Rather then viewing it as an adversarial form of team work they approach it like a football game where there is a clearly defined winner and looser.

- Lack of counter offers. Just as I've been saying rather then come up with an alternate proposal the NFLPA's solution is simply to storm out and complain to the media about getting a raw deal. The owners have offered deals that at the very least have served as a great starting point. Instead De Smith comes out and calls it "the worst deal in sports."

- Not immediately shooting down the idea of an NFLPA draft event to compete with the draft.

- Decertification. Another attempt to acquire leverage and exploit the legal system. No better then the owners rainy day fund.

- Insisting on seeing the books for themselves. Third party audits aren't good enough for the NFLPA. Again focused more on winning and acquiring leverage rather then moving things along and finding a solution to the lockout.


The owners may have started the lockout but I blame the players for allowing it to continue for as long as it has.

So the Owners opting out backed the players in a corner but you have "no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA". You keep moving the target.

As Tripp said, the "open your books" issue is giant red herring. As part of the old CBA, the books are audited by a third party. If I understand you, however, your biggest problem is that a bunch of billionaires are crying "poor" and not allowing the players to see how much they spent on towel cleaning. Again, as Tripp said, idealogically, that's a hard sell for the owners, D-Smith knows it and is playing it up regardless of whether it is a sound legal theory. Doesn't matter that what D-Smith is asking for is legally unprecedented, it makes a great sound bite and joe-schmoe is bound to sympathize with sticking it to the owners.

My biggest beef with the players is not that they are seeking to increase/protect their share - both they and the owners are entilted to do so. Rather, its the deceptive manner in which they are trying to do so (i.e. the illegal decertification). I blame that mainly on D-Smith. He is nothing more than a high-priced schlock ambulance chaser - He just chases Mercedes instead.

When you don't have the law, argue the facts, when you don't have the facts, baffle'em with BS. Well, D-Smith is down to BS. His characterizations are consistently one off the accurate truth, his appeals are not to the law but to fans emotions. Doing mainly civil defense work, I see his type all the time and they piss me off simply 'cause you have to work twice as hard refuting all the BS rather than focusing on the issues. They throw everything against the wall, accurate or not, in hopes something will stick. He is a pile o' crap with a mouth. "You refuted what I said yesterday, I'll just move the target over here even if, in doing so, I indirectly contradict everything I said yesterday."

Sorry rant over. The owners opted out 'cause they wanted a bigger piece of the pie. The players got a great deal and don't want to change it. Cut the baby in the middle and move on (which is what the owners March 11th reportedly did). To me, that's the bottom line.


TA DAA!


Thank You, Thank You, Point, Set, Match. Ladies and Gentleman.... Elvis has left the building.

If you can't dazzle them with facts baffle them with BS.

Everything done has been legal, except what the players have done.... decertify. But everyone is hung up on the lower court lifting the lockout. The fact is the courts need to look at the first action (the decertification) before they can look into the owners actions.

A judge does not listen to the facts of a drunk driver before he listens to whether the traffic stop was legal or not first. A judge does not listen to the officer finding drugs in the car before he listens to whether the traffic stop was legal and what probable cause the police officer had to even search the person or car.

People are completely jumping past whether the players had a right to decertify prior to the CBA ending and running with the owners can't lockout the players. News flash, if the Union/players were wrong in what they did then the owners lockout will not be illegal.

I agree with the $$$. You can't fault either side for trying to get as much as they can. Thats the nature of the beast. Why the owners agreed to the 59% back in 05 or 06 I don't know, maybe they did it for the fans to keep football going. But the owners now realize they made a mistake and want some of it back.

Somewhere along the line, I must have missed that decertification is illegal

Somewhere along the line, I must have missed that decertification is illegal

It's more of a glitch. Technically it's not illegal but based on the context in which it has been used it should be. They look like a union, act like a union, but technically aren't a union and are using it as a front to bring fourth anti-trust litigation in an attempt to gain leverage.

2 points-
Legally, the players didn't de-certify they filed a disclaimer of the union. The difference is that a disclaimer can be rescinded any time, a de-certification is in place for a year. Thus, a disclaimer is much more a light switch the nflpa can turn on or off as needed.

So far the disclaimer is not illegal, or a sham, however - I think it violates the spirit of the 2006 CBA terms on its expiration. The NLRB may at some point rule the disclaimer invalid.

Wonder what the reaction on this site would have been back in '89 when Upshaw did much of (if not exactly) what De Smith is doing now

Wonder what the reaction on this site would have been back in '89 when Upshaw did much of (if not exactly) what De Smith is doing now

One difference, and I think it does matter to your question, Upshaw let the existing agreements void before beginning a litigation strategy, D Smith planned for two years to use litigation as a labor tool.

I also tend to believe that the condition the players worked under in Upshaws time were far far worse then what the players are working under now.