Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;803226]Wow, great counter offer players. Way to go, you sure you guys have never negotiated before because you guys are awesome at it, and by awesome I mean down right horrible, so bad that a 4th grader could do better, so bad that the Players would be better off sending a giraffe to negotiate on their behalf, or a Saint Bernard, everyone likes Saint Bernards.[/quote]

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.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=NC_Skins;803173]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.[/quote]

1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.

So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.

2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

NC_Skins, at the risk of sounding like Roger Goodell, the only meaningful issue at play here is the principle of collective bargaining. If the player's decertification was anything more than a leverage tactic, this would be be debatable. However, it isn't. One side is delaying the process of collective bargaining in deference to attempting to change the puzzle as to where the leverage lies.

It's going to come back to collective bargaining at the end, whether the players get more of, or give up a greater share of the leverage. We're spending months of the offseason using the legal system to change the negotiating environment, instead of hammering this deal out in March as both sides could have. This is not disputable. The players didn't accept the owners deal back in March because they knew/thought/believed they could get a better one in July, after the courts decided on specific points.

Which is completely in their right as the players. But the desire to then spin the lockout as the action of the owners is nothing more than intellectually dishonest posturing by the NFLPA. And I think Goodell, and the owners, are going to eventually win the war of public opinion because De Smith is trying to do what's best for the players (and I think he's succeeding on that point), but he's also lying to NFL fans in the process about who is responsible for what. I mean, his job is only to hold out long enough to get the best deal possible for the players. So if he has to lie to do his job and say the NFL is suing to not play games, then he has to lie. But we live in the information age. And he's underestimating, in my opinion, the ease of the ability of NFL fans to get information that contradicts what he's saying.

De Smith may ultimately be win in the end, but I don't think he'll ever be viewed favorably by NFL fans.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=NC_Skins;803236]I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.[/quote]

The players agreed to a CBA that allowed the owners to opt out without any justification necessary. I am not sure how the owners exercising a negotiated contract right is in any way improper. Show me where, any where, in the CBA [I]agreed to by the players[/I], that the owners are required to show cause, injury or other justification [I]prior to exercising their negotiated rights.[/I]

[quote=NC_Skins;803236]The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!![/quote]

Loopholes I get. I got no problem with [I]legal[/I] loopholes. Hell, I love'em. The players, however, aren't taking advantage of a loophole. Read the CBA - (see CRed's post earlier). The players union, essentially, agreed not to decertify as a means of circumventing federal labor laws. Despite this agreement, they decertify with the specific intent of filing suit and attempting to gain leverage by intentionally circumventing their earlier agreement and established labor law.

This is not a "loophole", it is a flagrant violation of the CBA and federal labor laws. This was the basis of the NFL's opposition to the District Court's injunction and, according to the 8th Circuit when it overruled the lower court, is a claim upon which the NFL is likely to succeed.

Had the players followed the CBA and allowed the matter to proceed through the NLRB or other applicable (as agreed by the players union), I would have no beef with them.

[quote=NC_Skins;803236]Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.[/quote]

Nothing technically legal about it? I am assuming your using hyperbole, but, if not, the sheer unbridled ignorance of this remark makes a response impossible. Short answer: The NFL and its teams are legal entities that can choose to do business anyway they so choose subject to the appropriate lablor laws which the players availed themselves of by forming a union.

[quote=NC_Skins;803236]Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.[/quote]

Their decertification, I suggest, was illegal and forced the owners hand into a lockout. Ultimately, the courts will make a determination as to the decertification's legality but, based on the 8th Circuit's recent ruling, it is likely they will find the decertification illegal.

[quote=NC_Skins;803236]You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything illegal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.[/quote]

Let's get something straight - I think the owner's voided the CBA out of greed, they were unhappy with their cut and wanted to increase it. This does not mean what they did was illegal or a violation of the CBA or applicable law. It is legal to be greedy.

The players actions also demonstrate a level of greed - not nearly as much as the owners. However, in pursuing their perfectly legal greed, the players, IMO (and apparently the 8th Circuit's) are using illegal methods.

[quote=NC_Skins;803236] So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.[/quote]

Go look it up. By all accounts, the March 11th proposal met the players demands half way. As I understand it, the most recent proposal is more favorable.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

The whole "open the books" point has been vastly overstated. Look, the players should have known that they had no chance of seeing the books because that's what US labor law says. As my mom always says, it doesn't hurt to ask, or demand under the leverage of decertification, but making public the financials was never the sticking point the NFLPA made it.

It would have been a huge win for the NFLPA if they had leveraged the owners into showing the numbers...as far as I know, that may have been an unprecedented labor negotiation victory. But it was also a shot in the dark. And what would have been accomplished by the owners showing the numbers anyway? Are the players going to give up money if the owners are actually losing? No, of course not. The players are going to work off of the last labor deal either way. The financials are irrelevant in this negotiation. The strongest point of leverage that the players have is the public assumption that every NFL franchise is profitable. They don't want any sort of numbers to get in the way of that leverage.

Furthermore, the NFLPA's own website isn't exactly "showing all the data" either:

[url=http://www.nfllockout.com/what-is-this-lockout-not-about/]NFLLockout.com » What Is This Lockout NOT About?[/url]

Their point is in the capped years, players received between 50% and 53% of the NFL revenues (with a salary cap max between 56% and 59% over the same timeframe). Conveniently not listed, the 2010 (or uncapped) figures. Because that information hasn't come in yet. Or doesn't fit the argument they are making. Or something.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=Defensewins;803185]SBXVII- If the NFL owners did not get money back from the players in a new CBA deal the owners were going lock out the players anyway. The NBA owners are heading the same direction. You can see that right?
They will agree to a new deal at some point.
In the mean time the supposed "financially hurt NFL owners" greed continues:


[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/in-nfl-owners-enterprise-nothings-free/2011/05/16/AFW4gD5G_story.html"]In NFL owners’ enterprise, nothing’s free - The Washington Post[/URL][/quote]

Honestly, I don't care about the NBA. I like the Wizards, but I'm more of a NFL/NHL fan.

Again, owners and their greed. What about the players greed? They are/were making 59% of the profit. I understand the owners skimmed off the top, and want more, but I look at it this way... either you have a job or you don't. Go ahead and play hard ball and hopefully later some of the teams don't fold or are forced to other markets. Want and example? Buffalo and the owner wanting to move to Canada because there are more fans there and probably a better market.

I know I'm taking it to an extreme when I say the worst teams are relying on the revenue sharing heavily in order to help their clubs and with out the money needed they will fold, but as I'm taking it to an extreme so I think others are when they say the NFL is doing just fine and the owners are greedy. I'd like to know what the owners take is after paying for their stadiums, practice fields, players, equipement, coach's, people who fix the fields, secretearies and related staff, plane costs, gas, food, etc. etc. etc. Then the owners have to take a % of their income and hand it over to the NFL to be distributed to the less fortunate clubs. But even though I'm just wondering... I don't think it's really anybodies business. Not mine, not the media's, not the players.

I think if this is the sticking point then the owners should take the 3 worst clubs and show their books. Then the players can't complain since I'm pretty sure it would prove loss of revenue.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

I am not "for the players" or "for the owners" or anything. I am just pointing out how as more information becomes available, the owners look more and more justified. Which is the complete opposite of what I predicted in February. I figured the players would eventually be justified in their plight. And they may be, eventually.

I supported American Needle 100% in their Supreme Court case against the NFL, and it would have been a disaster if major pro sports leagues gained full US antitrust exemption. But this labor dispute has a completely different set of facts. And I think the players' supporters are being forced to get more and more ideological in their arguments as more info becomes available.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SBXVII;803241]1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.

So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.

2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.[/quote]

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?

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148712424300234.html]NFL Labor Talks Hinge on Growth Issue - WSJ.com[/url]

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.

[quote]The one thing NFL owners care most about—the market value of their franchises—can only increase if revenues do. Increased revenues also give prospective NFL owners more confidence that they're making a solid investment as opposed to a vanity purchase[/quote]

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.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=NC_Skins;803236]I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.




The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!



Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.



Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.

[IMG]http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu242/laurennopenz/NuteGunray.jpg[/IMG]

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.



So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.



...and most of it goes to the guys who [B]started[/B] this. Owners.[/quote]

[B]#1-[/B] Yes the players had the option to back out.

[B]#2-[/B] Yes the players have the right to file as a group. I think it's what the owners hoped would happen if they locked out. Cuts down on individual law suits.

[B]#3- [/B]Monopoly? I don't think so. Prior to the UFL, yes, but the players do have more then one option now. They may not get as good a pay but they have options.

[B]#4- [/B]Proof? You act as though the Judge has already ruled and said the players are not doing anything wrong? Lets look at the chronology of whats happened;
A- The Players decertified prior to the end of the CBA.
B- The Owners (forced) to lockout due to Union decertifying.
c- Players sued over lockout.
D- Owners sued over presumed illegal Union decertification.

So to fill in the gaps... the players chose to let the CBA expire when they chose not to stay the 6 hours and try to talk. The players chose to let the CBA expire (opt out) when they did not stay and request an extension to work things out.

Did the players decertify previously? yes, but they did it legally. They waited until "AFTER" the first CBA expired and chose to decertify which is supposedly legal under the law, but this time around the Union chose to decertify "PRIOR" to the CBA expiring to as the players put it "get the upper hand." But this "MIGHT" be illegal. All thats happened so far is that a Judge looked at the players case first because it was filed first and the Judge felt the players had a right to work. In reality one Judge should be listening to all the information and making a decision. If this happened the Judge would have tabled the players case and listened to the owners case first, which is the first event. If the players were wrong and decertified illegally then all the rest is moot. If they were not breaking the law then the next subject is the owners and their lockout. The problem is this decision won't be made until June 3rd.

The players may not be doing anything wrong in your eyes but guess what? the 8th Circuit agreed the owners were not doing anything wrong either when they kept the lockout in place.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;803194]Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

As to the TV contracts, I haven't been following that issue to closely. As such, not going to contest the issue at this point.

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

[B]The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.[/B]

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.[/quote]

Two solid compromises and no "COUNTER OFFER." People talking that they need to bounce the ideas back and forth which is communicating. The players have failed and yet to make a counter offer for the owners to work with.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=NC_Skins;803240]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. [B]The owners should open their books to a third party financial firm to allow them to review the books[/B]. 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.[/quote]

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.

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

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.
[url=http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2011/5/17/2175403/demaurice-smith-has-it-backwards]DeMaurice Smith Has It Backwards - Bleeding Green Nation[/url]

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=NC_Skins;803249]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?

[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148712424300234.html"]NFL Labor Talks Hinge on Growth Issue - WSJ.com[/URL]

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.[/quote]

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.

[URL="http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?344991-Season-Ticket-Renewals"]Season Ticket Renewals[/URL]

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

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=NC_Skins;803173]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.[/quote]

[quote=NC_Skins;803249][B]Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA.[/B] 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. .[/quote]

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 [I]are[/I] 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.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

My beef is as follows.

[B][U]Owners and Goodell:[/U][/B]
- 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'

[U][B]NFLPA, particularly De Smith[/B][/U]

- 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.


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

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;803260]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 [I]are[/I] 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.[/quote]


[SIZE=6][COLOR=red]TA DAA![/COLOR][/SIZE]
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
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.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

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

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803264]Somewhere along the line, I must have missed that decertification is illegal[/quote]

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.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

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

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;803267]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[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803267]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[/quote]

Warpath 89'
[IMG]http://www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/z/zork_i_01.gif[/IMG]

In all seriousness though that was then, this is now. Upshaw learned how to negotiate and found it more effective then grandstanding. On top of that he had an apprentice (Troy Vincent) which the NFLPA decided not to elect for reasons I don't know. I guess they thought that De Smith in a CBA negotiation would have been like putting the owners against Ray Lewis in his prime. Instead they got Lamar Marshall in 2006.

Bottom line the stage should have been set for Upshaw's successor not to repeat his rookie mistakes.
[IMG]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQP9o7LE_AouEIJeBJCZuZwBAUGPh7h9l-xnb6zZS_YmFOtzYnk[/IMG]

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[QUOTE]“Who knows when that will be? Obviously, all of this is pretty unpredictable, for all of us, even the players,” Brees said today on the Dan Patrick Show. “Even a guy like me, I’m on the executive committee, so I was in a lot of those mediation sessions prior to the lockout and everything else and I’m very up to speed about everything that’s happening with the courts. And yet you still feel pretty helpless. You’re just kind of sitting there waiting for judges to make their decision.”
[/QUOTE]

Drew Breese kills me. Can someone please call him and make him aware he's "not helpless." That the time spent waiting for the appeals court could be waisted on making a counter offer to the NFL and possibly negotiating a new CBA.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SBXVII;803270]Drew Breese kills me. Can someone please call him and make him aware he's "not helpless." That the time spent waiting for the appeals court could be waisted on making a counter offer to the NFL and possibly negotiating a new CBA.[/quote]

That would show weakness. Can't show weakness have to show strength. Have to take whats yours. Have to win. Nice guys finish last, just ask T.O.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

I'm not sure it can be proven Smith's strategy all along was to use litigation as a tool

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803272]I'm not sure it can be proven Smith's strategy all along was to use litigation as a tool[/quote]

Maybe, but all I know is that everytime I've seen the NFL make a serious offer DeSmith has left and ran directly to the media. He's like a woman. "I'm mad at you but I'm not going to tell you what I did, I will tell Sarah though and then she'll tell you."

De Smith should be going after rapist, pedophiles, and murderers. Not rich NFL fat cats.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

How do you know they have been serious offers?

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803272]I'm not sure it can be proven Smith's strategy all along was to use litigation as a tool[/quote]Maybe, maybe not. That's what the NFL alleged out of post-mediation frustration anyway.

I do think if he was going to use decertification/litigation as leverage to get a quick deal, it was quickly botched if not mishandled from the start. Pulling the trigger in the midst of real progress didn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, being couped up in a room with people who you disagree with for two straight weeks...I can't think of anything in the world less enjoyable than that, but I don't know if real human feelings of frustration on both sides justify the childish actions of both sides (far less on De Smith than Jeff Pash, but I digress), and the ultimate decision by the NFLPA to go to litigation.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/17/drew-brees-feels-helpless-waiting-for-judges-decisions/]Drew Brees feels helpless waiting for judges’ decisions | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Can someone please explain why it seems that the players don't want to get a deal done? Why it seems they want this to go to court?

It's retoricle.

But although the owners gave a crappy deal the first time, they offered a second deal with out any input or ideas from the players/union. Negotiations take two parties. If only one party is communicating then it's not a negotiation. The second deal might be just as crappy as the first to the players, but an offer is a starting point. make a counter offer and see what happens. Then as negotiations go they should be bantering back and forth.

But.... the players/union.... don't want to banter, they are waiting for court. and the owners are the bad people. Hmmm.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803275]How do you know they have been serious offers?[/quote]

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-03-09-nfl-labor-negotiations-mediation-owners-union_N.htm]AP: Union rejected NFL's offer to show 5 years of profitability data - USATODAY.com[/url]

[url=http://football-today.net/nflpa-rejects-health-care-proposal-made-by-league/21606/]NFLPA Rejects Health Care Proposal Made by League | Football Today[/url]

[url=http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=nfldetail&pid=47906&pcid=43&rss=1&cp]Union rejects NFL labor proposal, then decertifies[/url]

[quote]"The union left a very good deal on the table," the NFL said in a statement. "It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

"The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.

"The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes."[/quote]

[url=http://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/5/17/2175845/nfl-makes-another-offer-to-the-players-during-mediation-on-monday]NFL Makes Another Offer to the Players During Mediation on Monday - Cincy Jungle[/url]
mawae - "we are not anywhere closer to a deal now than we were in march"

Now the NFL has extended another offer, we obviously don't know the details yet but rather then say "hey lets stay a couple more days and hammer this out" they say "ehhh lets just talk at the next court ordered mediation on June 7th." IE "Let's see if we can get more leverage in court."

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;803272]I'm not sure it can be proven Smith's strategy all along was to use litigation as a tool[/QUOTE]
I will admit I tend to hear his words and think he is BSing, but he was on Sirius tonight(no really I heard him) and he said that they had been planning this for two years, now he is smart enough to phrase it however it needs to be phrased for legal purposes, but I think its obvious that A) the owners were going to lockout the players and B) the players were going to litigate. The players did not elect him based on his past mediation results.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;803274]Maybe, but all I know is that everytime I've seen the NFL make a serious offer DeSmith has left and ran directly to the media. He's like a woman. "I'm mad at you but I'm not going to tell you what I did, I will tell Sarah though and then she'll tell you."

De Smith should be going after rapist, pedophiles, and murderers. Not rich NFL fat cats.[/quote]

Let me help you out....

In Drew Brees statement he added....
[QUOTE] You’re just kind of sitting there [B]waiting for judges to make their decision.”[/[/B]QUOTE]

There is no need to wait for a judge to make a decision if your actively in negotiations. If your not counter offering and waiting for a judges decision then clearly you want litigation to resolve the issues.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

Frivolous law suits FTW!

•January 2011: The NFLPA files a collusion case, citing that just one of 216 restricted free agents (RFAs) in 2010 was signed to an offer sheet. In 2009, four of 55 RFAs signed offer sheets. The case was filed after the sides extended a December deadline for filing.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803272]I'm not sure it can be proven Smith's strategy all along was to use litigation as a tool[/quote]

I'm not sure there's much evidence to prove otherwise.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

It's not like Smith and Goodell haven't been talking. They spent quite a few hours together today. And maybe instead of serious I should have said good offers.

I understand that the owners concern is more about the long term fate of the NFL than perhaps the players, but from my vantage point I still have a tough time siding with the owners. Regardless of my opinion of how some reps on the player side are handling things.

I'm confident (famous last words?) a deal will be worked out by the time it truly needs to.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.

But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803287]I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.

[B]But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA[/B][/quote]

That one needs to happen. I can live with an NBA lockout mainly because the NBA needs fundamental changes to player movement and acquisition. The NFL system on the other hand works from a competition perspective all it needs is a few tweaks. And unlike the NFL I can in fact believe that the NBA owners are loosing money.

On Sirius (seriously he was on!) I counted at least three blatant, imo, fallacies that D Smith is trying to get people to believe -

1) the deal on the table at the end of mediation was the worst deal in the history of sports. It is a fallacy because regardless if the deal was a good or bad deal, I am confident that the players from the before the early 80s (you know the ones getting maybe 200 a month if they are lucky) was far worse. Rather than stick with a semi valid line that the deal was worse than any since collective bargaining started or some other line he chooses to demonize the other side and misrepresent the truth when the truth could still be seen favoring his side.

2). The owners are the first to ever sue to lock their doors, or something to that effect, again the players were the plaintiffs and filed suit, the owners appealed that decision but that is not the same as suing to shut the doors and as a legal minded individual D Smith certainly understands that. The owners were definitely seeking to shut their doors, but let's be honest and admit that that is a valid labor tool that has been used before. Also I believe the players have gone on strike in the past so both sides have used their tools when it serves their purpose.

3) the last one is a little more touchy, but basically "the players and fan want football and the owners don't". This, if he truly believes it is lunacy. The owners clearly want football, on their terms, just as much as the players want football, on their terms. Both sides need to drop concern for the fans because it is tangential at best. As for DSmiths statement again it is hyperbole meant to demonize the owners and galvanize the players. I don't see how that leads to a resolution any time soon.

This goes to what JR was saying, D Smith truly wants to dazzle people with grandiose (BS) statements - worst deal ever, first league to sue to shut doors. Rather then speak in terms which draw sides closer, he uses words to widen the gap, and push the sides apart. Granted the nfl may use words without meaning, but when they talk their words are on point about working together, getting a deal done, trying to make something that is good for players and owners. You don't here those words from D Smith right now.

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803286]It's not like Smith and Goodell haven't been talking. They spent quite a few hours together today. And maybe instead of serious I should have said good offers.

I understand that the owners concern is more about the long term fate of the NFL than perhaps the players, but from my vantage point I still have a tough time siding with the owners. Regardless of my opinion of how some reps on the player side are handling things.

I'm confident (famous last words?) a deal will be worked out by the time it truly needs to.[/quote]

I'm curious about why you'd side with the players honestly. I think you'd agree both sides are being greedy (which is perfectly acceptable in this case to me.) Given only that I'd be hard pressed to take any side at all. But add in that the players have consistently positioned themselves to pursue litigation and have now pursued said litigation by pretty dubious means I can't see how anyone can side with them. The balance of good faith spent lies firmly with the owners in my opinion and that is the only thing that tilts me towards the owners.

Edit: I think it is telling that we have a group of 32 business owners making BILLIONS of dollars a year crying poor and slowly but surely public opinion seems to be shifting firmly to their side. If there was ever a less sympathetic entity than the NFL owners crying poor I cannot think of it. Yet the players are consistently positioning themselves on the wrong side of "right".

Re: 8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues
 

[quote=SmootSmack;803287]I'm sure Smith was prepared all along to go to litigation if he felt it was necessary, but I guess where I differ from you guys is whether he made it necessary. I suppose a lot of people believe, with reason, the only way a deal would be reached was if we got to the breaking point.[/quote]Well...there was a deadline, and some decision had to be made. And the ultimatum offered to the NFL for another extension was, of course, 10 years of audited financials. In the next 15 minutes. Which, depending on your perspective, was either the very first in a series of moves that could be grouped as nothing more than posturing, or another move in the long line of a series of moves aimed at swaying public opinion. I think only someone who was completely delusional would consider that good faith bargaining.

And I don't think that De Smith is delusional. I think he's quite good at his job. But the thing I want to know is, why did the players take this to the District court in Minnesota if they knew it would just be appealed to the 8th Circut anyway? The only logical reason I can fathom is that it's not going to stop here, but it's headed to the Supreme Court. And THAT was the plan since decertification.[quote]But this negotiation will be nothing compared to the NBA[/quote]Amen.

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;803286]It's not like Smith and Goodell haven't been talking. They spent quite a few hours together today.

...
[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiosity SS, are you referring to the boylan mediation or that the 2 met separate and apart from that?