Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Here's my take: the players made significant gains for themselves (but not for retired players) in 2006 though the process of collectively bargaining. That negotiation was far more time sensitive than this current one. They couldn't let the 2006 league year begin without a deal because there was no language in that deal to protect against teams leveraging the last capped year to their benefit, and muddying the waters for any potential future labor deal. The salary cap, very seriously, may never have returned and the quality of football declined.

It should not be perceived as a liability of the owners that the players were seemingly unwilling to collectively bargain away some of the gains they had made in 2006 without seeing the financials. Should they have just given back $1 Billion in future revenues? Probably not, but the players association came from a totally false premise that there would be anything close to a "give back" in these negotiations.

There was no agreement. That's why there is currently a lockout. Right now, the players have nothing. There is no agreement, and until a court rules that a lockout violates anti-trust law, no contracts for the upcoming season are valid.

Ultimately, the players are worth a certain amount. They are probably worth less than the owners "best" offer, but more than what they would have gotten if the union had "given back" $1 Billion of the revenue pie. Whatever the number was, it certainly could have been achieved through collective bargaining, but both sides (particularly the players) would have needed to check false entitlement at the door.

It's hard to sympathize with the owners because they certainly are underestimating their own ability to create new revenue streams. They certainly didn't NEED to opt out of the CBA to remain profitable. They may have needed to alter their business models a bit to cut costs and increase revenues (and I thought the 18 game season was a fairly ingenuous was to accomplish this).

The players are fully entitled to choose the litigation route via decertification, but fair value (plus a little extra) could have been achieved through collective bargaining. The only logical reason for going this route has little to do with fair value and mutually ensured prosperity, but with "going to war" and "winning" the labor dispute. That's an excellent example of the greed that they NFLPA leadership is accusing the owners of.

The NFLPA probably does have better laywers and likely can "win" in court, and the fans ultimately aren't going to give a damn when football is here next season, and as an observer it's hard for me not to root for the players to get whatever they can in the negotiations.

But the buck will eventually just be passed along to the fans anyway.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I wonder if things like this will accelerate getting this thing fixed.

[B]Jets put pay cuts, furloughs in place.[/B]
As expected, the Jets introduced 25 percent pay cuts on Saturday for every employee under their football operations umbrella.That includes head coach Rex Ryan and GM Mike Tannenbaum. Meanwhile, every worker on the business side of things will be required to take unpaid furloughs until a new CBA is agreed to. However, if an agreement is reached before the start of the preseason, all employees will be reimbursed for their lost pay. Mar 12, 4:53 PM

[url=http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5192/mark-sanchez]Mark Sanchez - New York Jets - 2011 Player Profile - Rotoworld.com[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=NC_Skins;788731][B]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?[/B] It bewilders me that people are still spouting off rhetoric when the facts are plain and simple. [/quote]Look in the mirror and repeat....

[quote]Yeah, because those asshats representing the NFL corporation are any better?[/quote]Actually, the two point men are Roger Goodell and D. Smith. Here's Goodell's NFL background:

Goodell's career in the NFL began in 1982 as an administrative [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Intern"][COLOR=#0645ad]intern[/COLOR][/URL] in the league office in [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/New_York"][COLOR=#0645ad]New York[/COLOR][/URL] under then-Commissioner [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Pete_Rozelle"][COLOR=#0645ad]Pete Rozelle[/COLOR][/URL] – a position secured through an extensive letter-writing campaign to the league office and each of its then 28 teams. In 1983, he joined the [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/New_York_Jets"][COLOR=#0645ad]New York Jets[/COLOR][/URL] as an intern, but returned to the league office in 1984 as an assistant in the [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Public_relations"][COLOR=#0645ad]public relations[/COLOR][/URL] department.[URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-11"][COLOR=#0645ad][12][/COLOR][/URL]
In 1987, Goodell was appointed assistant to the president of the [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/American_Football_Conference"][COLOR=#0645ad]American Football Conference[/COLOR][/URL] ([URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Lamar_Hunt"][COLOR=#0645ad]Lamar Hunt[/COLOR][/URL]), and under the tutelage of Commissioner [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Paul_Tagliabue"][COLOR=#0645ad]Paul Tagliabue[/COLOR][/URL] filled a variety of football and business operations roles, culminating with his appointment as the NFL's Executive [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Vice_President"][COLOR=#0645ad]Vice President[/COLOR][/URL] and [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Chief_Operating_Officer"][COLOR=#0645ad]Chief Operating Officer[/COLOR][/URL] in December 2001.
As the NFL's COO, Goodell took responsibility for the league's football operations and officiating, as well as supervised league business functions. He headed NFL Ventures, which oversees the league's business units, including media properties, marketing and sales, stadium development and strategic planning.
Goodell was heavily involved in the negotiation of the league's current [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Collective_bargaining"][COLOR=#0645ad]collective bargaining[/COLOR][/URL] agreement. He had worked extensively with Tagliabue since the latter became commissioner in 1989.[URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-cbc1-2"][COLOR=#0645ad][3][/COLOR][/URL] He has played an extensive role in league expansion, realignment, and stadium development, including the launch of the [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/NFL_Network"][COLOR=#0645ad]NFL Network[/COLOR][/URL] and securing new television agreements as well as the latest collective bargaining agreement with the [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/National_Football_League_Players_Association"][COLOR=#0645ad]National Football League Players Association[/COLOR][/URL].

Here's Smith's NFL (also labor negotiation background): ......

So in the sense of experience in the situation at hand who's the asshat?

[quote]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.[/quote]To me, people who make statements like this have no valid, substantive argument and are reduced to speculation and rhetoric. If my issue with the players stemmed from jealousy of the amount of money they make and leverage, I'd be a lot more jealous of the billionaire who holds the keys to the kingdom than the well-paid millionaire whose career spans an average of 3-4 years.

[quote]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.[/quote]The owners were out-leveraged into a bad deal in 2006 and are working to correct that. They have agreed to provide detailed financial info to the NFLPA, but not a line-by-line accounting for the last ten years for each team. No way in hell as an NFL owner would I ever agree to that....and the players know this as well. Smith's strategy was to take this to court all along. The NFLPA had an option...how about bargain in good faith and realize there will be some level of "give" in a negotiation. Everything I've heard (directly from NFL player reps) is that they are unwilling to give any salary relief to the owners unless they get full and open disclosure...which again they know the owners won't give.

[quote]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.[/quote]see above and my last post. The latest NFL offer had a gap of approx. $ 185M to bridge with the players, not $ 1B. The NFLPA "took their ball and went home" because they seek leverage in the courts.

[quote]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[/quote]Get your number rights, under the current CBA the owners are only getting in the area of 42% of the NFL "pie" yet they take all the financial risk.

[quote]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.[/quote]It seems like a "fair deal" to anyone with an ounce of common sense who isn't blindly in the players corner.

[quote]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.[/quote]#2 is a business deal with the networks. What's wrong with a business negotiating a deal that is in their interest. #1 is trying to keep this negotiation out of the courts' hands and in the realm of a negotiation, not doing business under a court order. My problem is the NFLPA planning as their strategy to settle this in the courts rather than through negotiation.

[quote]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.[/quote]Here's where condescention boomerangs and smacks back in the face. The NFL is far more than the current members of the NFLPA, it's more than what's on the field this upcoming season. The current players can be replaced and the talent level would be back to where it is today within 3-4 years. Would it take a couple more years to find the next Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson, possibly. But the NFL will go on, it's fans will still be there and they come to watch their team not specific players. Especially in the era of Free Agency folks are used to players switching teams. Don't overestimate the value of this current crop of players....and don't think there won't be those who cross the picket line. There were many before who did.

[quote]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.[/quote]Because if the players truly want to be "partners" then they should be prepared to share in the risk.

[quote]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.[/quote]Irrelevant to this discussion.

[quote]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.[/quote]As the NFLPA says, "show me". When you show your ability to give me season tickets in club level for life, I'll spend some time researching this.

[quote]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.[/quote]Again, irrelevant to this discussion. But if the community doesn't feel having the team is worth the tax cuts then don't give themn what they want. No court steps in to decide if a team stays or goes in a particular city.

[quote]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.[/quote]Actually it's you who appears to be lacking in understanding of the situation and facts and appear to be blindly siding with the players over the "greedy owners". I would suggest you ask yourself why an owner of a business (even the NFL) would shoulder all the expenses, take all the risks, and give over 58% of the total revenue to the employees.

Nevermind...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750]The owners were out-leveraged into a bad deal in 2006 and are working to correct that. They have agreed to provide detailed financial info to the NFLPA, but not a line-by-line accounting for the last ten years for each team. No way in hell as an NFL owner would I ever agree to that....and the players know this as well. Smith's strategy was to take this to court all along. The NFLPA had an option...how about bargain in good faith and realize there will be some level of "give" in a negotiation. Everything I've heard (directly from NFL player reps) is that they are unwilling to give any salary relief to the owners unless they get full and open disclosure...which again they know the owners won't give. [/quote]

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. I don't blame the NFLPA for requesting everything. Not their fault the owners are shady and don't want people to see how much they are making or foolishly spending.

[url=http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343947-The-Phone-Slamming-King-How-Snyder-Communications-made-Dan-Snyder-rich-1997-1999-...-rich-enough-to-buy-the-Washington-Redskins]The Phone Slamming King: How Snyder Communications made Dan Snyder rich, 1997-1999 ... rich enough to buy the Washington Redskins[/url]

These are owners that have made money crookedly and you expect them now to be honest? Gullible much?


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750]see above and my last post. The latest NFL offer had a gap of approx. $ 185M to bridge with the players, not $ 1B. The NFLPA "took their ball and went home" because they seek leverage in the courts. [/quote]

Not sure where you getting that from.

[url=http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6209672]Smith Responds To Offers - ESPN Video - ESPN[/url]

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.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750]Get your number rights, under the current CBA the owners are only getting in the area of 42% of the NFL "pie" yet they take all the financial risk.[/quote]


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?


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750]#2 is a business deal with the networks. What's wrong with a business negotiating a deal that is in their interest. #1 is trying to keep this negotiation out of the courts' hands and in the realm of a negotiation, not doing business under a court order. My problem is the NFLPA planning as their strategy to settle this in the courts rather than through negotiation.[/quote]

Hey, they are using their leverage just like the NFL tried to use it on them. Had they got the 4 billion from TV revenue during this lockout, they would have held all the leverage. Now it's a even playing field. The problem with the illegal contract is that the NFL was supposed to be doing contracts in the interests of both the players and themselves. Hence why they aren't getting any of the cash now. Guess the court system doesn't agree with you (or them) at all.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750]The NFL is far more than the current members of the NFLPA, it's more than what's on the field this upcoming season. The current players can be replaced and the talent level would be back to where it is today within 3-4 years. Would it take a couple more years to find the next Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson, possibly. But the NFL will go on, it's fans will still be there [/quote]

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.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750]Because if the players truly want to be "partners" then they should be prepared to share in the risk.[/quote]

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

Nah, they don't share any risks at all. Nope.



[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750]As the NFLPA says, "show me". When you show your ability to give me season tickets in club level for life, I'll spend some time researching this. [/quote]

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.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788750] I would suggest you ask yourself why an owner of a business (even the NFL) would shoulder all the expenses, take all the risks, and give over 58% of the total revenue to the employees.[/quote]


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.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/17/instead-of-player-pay-cuts-nfl-needs-more-revenue-sharing/]Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes[/url]


I suggest everybody read this article from Forbes. You know, the people would know and understand the finances of business.



[QUOTE]There’s little doubting that player salaries come into the equation with the NFL’s finances. But, the complexities as to why there would be losses has to be tied to more than just saying, “because we said so.” [U][B]The Forbes numbers paints two pictures: incredible growth for some clubs, while others have not grown at the same pace. That points to an internal matter for the league’s owners to handle, more than saying it solely rests on the shoulders of increased player salaries[/B]
[/U].[/QUOTE]


Game. Set. Match.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

GTripp,
[QUOTE]The NFLPA probably does have better laywers and likely can "win" in court, and the fans ultimately aren't going to give a damn when football is here next season, and as an observer it's hard for me not to root for the players to get whatever they can in the negotiations. [/QUOTE]

I can see where your coming from in respect that I would hope anyone would lobby to get whatever money they can get, but I have a hard time siding with the players after hearing what the owners offered, how much the players are already making, and honestly I don't feel sorry for the retired players when they should have found a way to save during their playing days or saved during their jobs after football. All football players know they have about 10-20 yrs to play then age catches up with them and then they should be putting their degrees to good use for their retirement.

I just have a hard time feeling sorry when I make roughly $50,000 a year with overtime, have to pay for the majority of my medical and dental, a % of my earnings goes to retirement and another goes to social security and yet my job is no different then the medical professionals who have to worry about picking up a disease from their patients, firemen who face getting killed fighting fires everyday, or policemen who face getting killed everyday.

I understand fans being pissed because they think the owners are being greedy but no one goes into business to lose money. No one goes into business to give away half their earnings. Businessman start business in the hopes of making the most money they can. Plus how good your business goes determines how succesful you are. So most owners should appear greedy because they are trying to make the most. If anything I feel the players are the ones fans should be pointing their fingers at and calling greedy because it just seems they are trying to take and take from what the owners are earnging. It seems like they want the owners to fork over the money for everything that the common citizen has to pay for on their own. It seems like their taking their starting salaries of $400,000 + for granted when if they don't like what they are doing to what they are making then come join the rest of us who have to earn a fraction of what they make with worse conditions then what they have .... everyday, not just on Sundays. Instead of risking their lives for 16 days of the year how about they risk their lives for 365 days minus weekends or time off and holidays. Not to mention having to worry about a possibility of a furlough. or they can find another job that has a union if they like.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Better yet the players can decide to not play for the NFL anymore and maybe start their own league with the intention of giving 60% + of their earnings to the players they hire and paying for all medical expenses for the rest of the players lives as well as a retirement fund and they could cut the games played to maybe half of what the NFL has say 8 games a year then playoff time cause cutting the games played obviously saves the players from getting more injuries.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

This thread is getting heated

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;788757]This thread is getting heated[/quote]

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=NC_Skins;788753]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.[/quote]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".

[quote]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.[/quote]Before you spout off, do some research, you're making yourself look bad:

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

From the link:
By Friday afternoon, when mediator George Cohen declared “no useful purpose would be served” by asking the parties to keep negotiating, [B]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.[/B]

[quote]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? [/quote]Again, do your homework or you FAIL....the players get almost 60% of revenue under the 2006 CBA.

[URL="http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_17525555"]NFL owners on verge of lockout with players in labor feud - The Denver Post[/URL]

[quote]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.[/quote]You may want to read this. History is a great teacher.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Players_Association"]National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

- 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.

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

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

[quote]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.[/quote]The Packers profits were, and that's documented fact. Other than being publicly held the Packers are not an unusual franchise financially

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

[quote]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.[/quote]You haven't provided crap for documentation and what you did provide was wrong.....I guess you and the NFLPA have something in common.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Damn Sammy you brought the rain

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Ruhskins;788758]We need a mediator to settle things down here. LOL.[/quote]

That's why I'm here.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

^ 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.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=mooby;788766]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;788816]I'm re-opening the thread, but let's try to keep things civil going forward, ok?[/quote]

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

As always, first-class stuff from Andrew Brandt:

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Welcome-to-Courtroom-Football.html]Welcome to Courtroom Football | National Football Post[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;788818]Do you remember the scab games from '87? They were pretty bad. Watching Joe the truck driver playing QB is no fun.

[B]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.[/B][/quote]

Precisely. This is why I am more rabid for the NFL than I am for the college game.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788825]As always, first-class stuff from Andrew Brandt:

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Welcome-to-Courtroom-Football.html]Welcome to Courtroom Football | National Football Post[/url][/quote]

This says it all:
"Negotiations are business, but these became personal."

I run into this crap everyday at work. People need to understand business is not personal. Everyone is trying to get a bigger piece of the pie, because they are greedy -- not because they hate you.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;788818][B]Do you remember the scab games from '87? They were pretty bad. Watching Joe the truck driver playing QB is no fun.[/B]

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.[/quote]

Yeah but it was pretty fun watching our scabs beat The Dallas Cowboys' starters.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;788818]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.[/quote]

Actually, watching our truck drivers beat the Cowboys' normal stars was great. :D

[YT]D0ZVIgJSgoM[/YT]

Ed Rubbert at QB, led the NFL in passing in weeks 3 and 4!

Action starts at about 9:30 when our guys strip Tony Dorsett of the ball. :goodjob:

#16 Rubbert...idea for a custom jersey!

[IMG]http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/6235/skins.jpg[/IMG]

[SIZE=7]beat
[IMG]http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4871/dallasqt.jpg[/IMG]
[/SIZE][SIZE=5]Box score:
[URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198710190dal.htm"]Washington Redskins at Dallas Cowboys - October 19th, 1987 - Pro-Football-Reference.com[/URL][/SIZE]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I find the notion that only the owners are taking financial risk laughable. The mere fact that players get on the field means they take both financial and physical risks. Plus with the way the NFL collective bargaining is structured the owners probably don't want to lessen the financial risk players take by guaranteeing their entire salary and lessen the restriction on their movements.

The only issue the owners should be concerned about and want to see changed is the rookie contract structure...everything else is perfectly reasonable the way it is.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Can anyone give a GOOD answer to this. What is the difference between a players' association and a players' union? The association is now advising players to stay away from the draft. Since the NFL argues the de-certification is a sham. I am curious what specific actions the NFLPA could take that would constitute acting as a union? And, what allowances are there when comparing a Union's actions to a Trade Associations with regards to common law practices.

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6216135]Sources: NFLPA tells players to boycott draft - ESPN[/url]

How can a non-union order non-union members (which rookies aren't until after they are drafted, even in a CBA environment) not to attend a specific event. And why would you ruin these players first moment in the sun -so to say...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

No rookies on stage?
The players union wants them to turn down their first chance to be in the limelight?
That's just stupid.
Damn, this is a bitter struggle.............

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=saden1;788855]I find the notion that only the owners are taking financial risk laughable. The mere fact that players get on the field means they take both financial and physical risks. Plus with the way the NFL collective bargaining is structured the owners probably don't want to lessen the financial risk players take by guaranteeing their entire salary and lessen the restriction on their movements.

The only issue the owners should be concerned about and want to see changed is the rookie contract structure...everything else is perfectly reasonable the way it is.[/quote]

your entire post is whats laughable. the owners pay the players millions of dollars, YEARS IN ADVANCE, for work not yet performed. The owners also get billion dollar loans to pay for stadiums, hoping fans will come in and pay to see the team play. the owners take on enormous financial risk.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Just so everyone gets a sense of time scale here, the NFLPA's request for an injunction against a lockout will not be heard by District Court until 6 April.

Allowing for various motions to come forth before then and just after whatever ruling is handed down, count on an appeal of any ruling that comes down. The chances that appeal will be heard before May 1 are only 50/50.

AND, the injunction request is only one of a bunch of legal skirmishes that will be on tap in the next few months - - as long as there are no serious negotiations going on.

No matter which side you think is right or wrong here, both sides are on a course to keep this away from anything resembling a settlement enviornment until at least the summer (June 21st) and probably until mid-July...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

JKC/Fed Ex field cost 250 mil to build, of which the taxpayers of PG county and Md financed 28% of it. They say jerry jones palace which cost 1.2 bil to build could have been done for 2/3 the cost but jerry didnt want a sponsor name on his new crown jewel. If jerry turned down 200 mil or so just for naming rights to his stadium, he cant be hurtin that bad. Idk about the giants/jets new stadium costs, pub fin, sponsorship etc.

With any investment there are risks. I just dont believe the owners when they say they are losing money. Maybe Jax and some others but as a whole I think it is they best investment any person can make. If the owners want to talk about peripheral or actual risks, they could always just sell their team to a line of guys wanting in the club.

Right now Im not too worried about having no football come Sept. We still have all of April, May, June and July until real decisions need to be made. Thats a long time imo.

Itd be nice if the NFL and NFLPA would think of ways to lessen the direct costs to the fans, even if it was just puffery, itd just be nice to know that they know there is a third party to all this with our own wants, needs.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I apologize if I've come off harsh in any of my posts. It's not intended and I'll try to be more mindful of this going further.


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788759]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;[/quote]

I think we have heard from the players that this "data" you are referring to isn't anywhere sufficient enough. I remember D. Smith saying they got more information from Forbes than what they offered with this "audited data". I'm sorry, but when you are negotiating over a billion dollars, simply saying "trust me" will never cut it. It's either show the books, or nothing at all.

Speaking of Forbes, I'd like you to comment on what a business magazine has to say about the situation. Seems they don't share your view (or the owners) about the situation.

[url=http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/17/instead-of-player-pay-cuts-nfl-needs-more-revenue-sharing/]Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes[/url]


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788759]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). [/quote]

I think D. Smith covers this whole"negotiating on good faith" and commitment to negotiating bit.

[url=http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/demaurice-smiths-rebuttal-in-the-rain/]DeMaurice Smith's Rebuttal in the Rain - NYTimes.com[/url]
[quote] “I understand that there’s probably some things that Jeff Pash has to say. But this is the truth: We know that as early as March of 2009, from the discovery in the television case, that the National Football League engaged in a strategy to get $4 billion of television money – to lock out our fans, lock out our players – even if the games weren’t played.

“When I get ready to leave, I will leave each and every one of you in the media with what we call the decision tree, because this is exactly a document from the National Football League, that talks about how they were going go about securing television money, and I quote, ‘for cash during a lockout.’ So, with all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one party’s commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you … stick to the facts.”[/quote]



[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788759]How the owners made their money is irrelevant. Should we talk about how Haynesworth made his money and how he performed in "good faith".[/quote]

It is when you are asking somebody to negotiate on faith. Also, good thing you brought up Haynesworth. The owners are complaining about rising player costs, yet owners are throwing stupid contract at idiots like Haynesworth. How is this a NFLPA problem? It would seem the owners need to spend their money better. (especially dan snyder)




[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788759]Again, do your homework or you FAIL....the players get almost 60% of revenue under the 2006 CBA.

[URL="http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_17525555"]NFL owners on verge of lockout with players in labor feud - The Denver Post[/URL][/quote]


From the very article you posted.

[quote]The players' union documents say the 59.5 percent is a stretch.[/quote]

So much for that 59% being fact.






[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788759]You may want to read this. History is a great teacher.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Players_Association"]National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

- 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.[/quote]

So you think the NFL will survive based off of 3 scab games? You don't understand, take the talent away and the NFL will die. You can claim to be a fan of the team all you want, but you aren't going to pay 2-5k per year to watch inferior talent. Players come and go, but the talent level remains the same.

You mention scabs but you haven't commented on this. The owners are locking out the players so they can't use scabs. This isn't like the 80's strike when it was the players striking. This is the owners striking and locking out the players. If they play games, then they have to fulfill the contracts of the current players. Which means there will be no scabs.

So your theory about bringing in inferior talent for 2-3 years and it replenishing it with the upcoming college athletes is false. There would be no games played. No scabs. No nothing. The NFL would indeed die, and a new league would form with different investors willing to take the same deal as the current CBA.



[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788759]Trust me the NFL isn't going anywhere.[/quote]

It will if the talent goes.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788759]We're talking financial risks. And no one is forcing the players to take the risk of getting on the field.[/quote]

There aren't really any more financial risks in the NFL now. It's a straight up cash cow. This isn't the 70's or 80s anymore.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;788870]your entire post is whats laughable. the owners pay the players millions of dollars, YEARS IN ADVANCE, for work not yet performed. The owners also get billion dollar loans to pay for stadiums, hoping fans will come in and pay to see the team play. the owners take on enormous financial risk.[/quote]

What exactly in my post do you find laughable? Were you not able to comprehend it?

They pay players years in advance? Here I was thinking they gave them annual salaries and voluntary signing bonuses. It's not the players fault that teams compete for their services. No team is obligated to pay signing bonuses.

Most stadiums are financed in part by tax payers not to mention the fact that the NFL is a cash cow. The days of owners struggling are over and they hardly have to do much to get loans or fans to attend games. That isn't to say some owners don't face market place pressures but then again that's because their teams don't win.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=saden1;788885]What exactly in my post do you find laughable? Were you not able to comprehend it?

[B]They pay players years in advance[/B]? Here I was thinking they gave them annual salaries and voluntary signing bonuses. It's not the players fault that teams compete for their services. No team is obligated to pay signing bonuses.

Most stadiums are financed in part by tax payers not to mention the fact that the NFL is a cash cow. The days of owners struggling are over and they hardly have to do much to get loans or fans to attend games. That isn't to say some owners don't face market place pressures but then again that's because their teams don't win.[/quote]

I think this apply mostly to baseball and basketball players, whose entire contract $$ is guaranteed.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I think the players are getting close to spending their last bit of goodwill. The blame has already started to shift to their side for the current state of the CBA.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Just to counter some of the points here, and it may have already been mentioned:

-NFL is a monopoly which dominates one industry, therefore a union must exist to negotiate for the players. Otherwise the owners do whatever they want and the players get screwed. They can't play anywhere else, at the same level, in the US. Federal jurisdiction prevails in these matters for this reason.

-Since NFL is a monopoly dominating the most popular sport, revenue will be high in the long-run. It is a sure fire investment, even for the cruddy markets, where portions of the NFL profit is shared.

-Owners do pay for stadiums, along with all taxpayers via taxes. They are not the only ones taking that risk.

-If the owners feel their position is valid, why not take it to court? Don't say it's because of the Judge. That is such a BS cop-out. Last time the verdict was reached with the NFL and players it was by a JURY!

Usually when people don't want to go to court, it is because they know they are wrong on some level. If you don't believe that or have an issue with the legal system, then that argument is for another day.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

wow, so much for turning over a new leaf.

#1- "If" scabs were allowed as during the first time around, I said I would watch them. You don't have to. I thought it was fun to watch average Joe's play ball. I don't care that they weren't making millions. It was just fun watching some people get a chance at something they otherwise would not normally get a chance to do and get excited seeing them get excited.

#2- Doom and Gloom. Your either a glass half empty or a glass half full. I prefer to listen to the pundits who are saying that both sides are not that far off and that although now it has to go to court, a deal could get done relatively fast within a month or two. Not that it will but it could.

#3- The other option is both agree to extend the old agreement for another year while they continue to work it out through the courts or the courts set up a temporary CBA possibly what the owners offered until both sides can agree on a new CBA.

And lastly I remember all the Doom and Gloomers who spoke out on the NHL strike and how bad Hockey would be. Hmmm... If I'm not mistaken hockey came back and is doing well. Maybe not as good money wise as they were or maybe better but new fans I'm sure filled in for the ones who left it.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

hooskin,

Umm, the Players have more options now vs back in the 80's. They can always chose to go make their millions in Canada, or maybe the UFL will agree to their demands on top of paying them the money they seek. It's not like the NFL is the only football league.

I did feel sorry for the players back in the 80's because they made about 50,000 or slighty over. It's one thing to own a business and be forced to pay your employees more then minimum wage, it different when the players want to own you and your business.

Another option mentioned is the owners fold their business's and start a new football team/league.

Another thing I've heard today is the NFLPA is requesting/encouraging the Rookies who were invited to NY for draft day not to go to help their cause. As Lavar said it's a tough choice since you want to make your future employer happy and show your commitment, but you want to support your future team players as well.

All things aside I think the NFLPA should not be asking the Rookies to participate. Let them if they want to but when you are in school your parents want to see you graduate high school and walk across the stage, when you go to college and some kids have their parents paying part of their college the parents want to see you walk across the stage again. You can't tell me that through all the years of you playing in little league, and moving on to high school, then college, I'm sure little ole dad would love to see you walk out on stage when your name is called, but the NFLPA wants to be selfish and not allow you to have what each of the other players got to do.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=hooskins;788896]Just to counter some of the points here, and it may have already been mentioned:

-NFL is a monopoly which dominates one industry, therefore a union must exist to negotiate for the players. Otherwise the owners do whatever they want and the players get screwed. They can't play anywhere else, at the same level, in the US. Federal jurisdiction prevails in these matters for this reason.

-Since NFL is a monopoly dominating the most popular sport, revenue will be high in the long-run. It is a sure fire investment, even for the cruddy markets, where portions of the NFL profit is shared.

-Owners do pay for stadiums, along with all taxpayers via taxes. They are not the only ones taking that risk.

-If the owners feel their position is valid, why not take it to court? Don't say it's because of the Judge. That is such a BS cop-out. Last time the verdict was reached with the NFL and players it was by a JURY!

[B]Usually when people don't want to go to court, it is because they know they are wrong on some level.[/B] If you don't believe that or have an issue with the legal system, then that argument is for another day.[/quote]

Great Post.
The owners do not want to share all of the revenue information with the players, they also do not want to share it with each other. The high revenue owners are not wanting to do more revenue sharing with the smaller market teams. That is why they are so insistent about not opening the books all the way.
I really liked the idea on an earlier post that mentions more balanced revenue sharing among the owners first to make up for any owners that are claiming losses, instead of taking it out of the players cut. I also agree with examining the books more closely for wasteful spending by the NFL. Just to see if cuts can be made on wasteful spending before the players have to start returning money. For example spending half a $million dollars for a 5 second fly over of F-18's over the Superbowl domed stadium is wasteful. Nobody in the stadium saw it.
There was the whole flap of New Orleans owners 33 year old daughter was upset there was not a free limo waiting for her at the airport. How many other free perks do the billionaire owners give themselves that comes right off the top of the profit? This need to be audited and controlled.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Oh for fck sake, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players. Not every fan will watch replacement players...including me. And you can forget about the casual fan altogether. My fcking Sundays are precious and there is no room for watching mediocre players try to play at a high level. I would rather watch the NBA or garden instead!

Let's not forget the fact that owners are competing with one another and can't collectively lockout players because that would be an anti-trust issue. That means if one owner signs a quality player that's locked out they will all follow suite unless they don't care about winning. You best believe each and every owner will pursue any means necessary to insure that their team is superior to every other team because that is the only way to rake in the dough.


There is no money in scabs on the field....period! Player unions are a natural part of the sports business...period!