Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788658]These players make hundreds of millions more than those that first decertified and made valiant strides to get fair deals for all involved. [/quote]

No, players don't make hundreds of millions of dollars. For every Peyton Manning, there are 10 Brandon Banks making squat (in the grand scheme of things) compared to the lavish contracts you hear about. Also, you have one owner (who doesn't do shit) getting paid 100-400 million a year on profits alone. Again, it's the players who ARE the product, not the stadium. Until the owners sacrifice their body and health, then that money should be going to the players.



[quote=CRedskinsRule;788658]These nflpa personnel, and particularly the non player demaurice smith, are a bunch of arrogant sob's who think that they are partners in a business when they are not, it is just not their legal position whether there are 1700 or 17000 members in their union.[/quote]

You are right, they aren't partners in the business. They ARE the business. If they left and went to the UFL or formed another league, guess who would watch. The fans would. Why? Because that's where the talent (read..product) is that we currently pay for. So because Smith chooses not to be buddy buddy with the owners and kiss their ass, he's a arrogant SOB? Dude, have you a clue to any of the owners? Every last one of them are arrogant SOBs starting with the biggest one off all being our dumbass owner.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788658] I make no comparisons to my position or job, these men have 4 BILLION dollars to partition among themselves for their health, livelihood, and fair compensation for being the best of the best and they don't see that as reasonable.[/quote]


Hey, guess what? The owners have 5 billion to split with 32 people as compared to having to split 4 billion with 1696 people. Wonder who's coming out on top? You are making this too easy.

These men have a average of 4 years in the NFL to make enough money to sustain them for the rest of their life. Most aren't making the big bucks like Tom Brady. Most of these guys will sacrifice their future quality of life just to make this money. As you've noted as late with all the incidents coming up about old NFL players health from prolong concussions, and the NFL has left them high and dry.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788658] I call bs. Not because I am ignorant nor because the owners have been "good faith actors", but because the players association has been full of b.s. since smith started spewing his lies and leading good players and good men astray like lost sheep.[/quote]

Really? What lies are those? Care to point them out? To say the players association has been full of B.S. and putting the players at fault is beyond ignorant. Guess what. If the OWNERS hadn't opted out, there would still be a CBA and still football on the table. THIS IS ALL ON THE OWNERS. They made the claim that their profits have decreased YET aren't willing to show the books. OWNERS FAULT. Again, the players aren't the ones that opted out of this and to make it seem like the players are behind this is ignorance at it's fullest. I showed you where the NFL has been positioning themselves from the moment they signed the 2006 CBA to opt out 2 years later. They were planning this coup the moment they signed along with Gene Upshaw. This was in the works LONG before Smith was put in to lead the NFLPA. You are so blind, it's not even funny. Are you ones of these guys that watch Fox, CNN, or MSNBC and swallow everything they tell you as 100% truth?

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788658](Ps nc skins I refrained from saying a particular statement towards you for your comment about people who disagree with your point of view towards corporations, but really f that opening statement.)[/quote]

You can say what you want, but the fact remains that people are ignorant about the situation. I don't think you are ignorant just because you disagree with me, I think people are ignorant because they aren't seeing the reality of it (see my original post). How can the players be at fault when they aren't the ones that have caused this crisis, it was the owners by opting out of the CBA. We(including myself) are all ignorant about something or another so don't take it as a personal shot, it's not.


Let's do another recap on the situation here:

1) Owners opted out of this deal, NOT the players.
2) Owners have been positioning themselves for a lockout for years. (trying to exempt themselves from Monopoly rules via Supreme Court, brokering TV contracts with a lockout payment clause)
3) Owners refuse to show books claiming profit loss over the past years and wants the players to "trust them" on the numbers. (mind you, this profit loss could be from making 300 million one year to 299 million the following.)

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;788664]No, players don't make hundreds of millions of dollars. For every Peyton Manning, there are 10 Brandon Banks making squat (in the grand scheme of things) compared to the lavish contracts you hear about. Also, you have one owner (who doesn't do shit) getting paid 100-400 million a year on profits alone. Again, it's the players who ARE the product, not the stadium. Until the owners sacrifice their body and health, then that money should be going to the players.

Then why are Manning, Brady and Brees the front runners for the lawsuit. The general public wont have sympathy for these guys, they make hundreds of millions of dollars.


I dont call making about 300,000 dollars a year making squat. The players play a game the puts there body in danger. If they dont want to get hurt then dont play this "GAME" for a living.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=redskins5044;788661]Name me a company where the the employees get more than a 50% of the companies profit? not many.

All of this is a joke to me, millionaires suing billionaires. I see where Manning, Brady and Brees are suing the NFL. Shouldn't the players that should be suing the ones who dont get the big contracts. Cry me a River NFL players. How about you save your money and have a good investment plan. I am sick of hearing that you players but your body on the line and take all the risk. We have members of the U.S. military that put there life on the lines and put there bodies on the line.

The NFL minimum in 2010 was 355,000. Most people would love to make that much in 7 years let alone 1 year as a bench warmer.[/quote]

You do realize it is the owners that is trying to lock the players out. Not the other way around. Right? The owners are crying a river and saying they are losing money, not the players. You do realize that right?
The owners are not wanting to open their books for a reason. Why do think that reason is?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;788659]You go to your Companies owner and ask for half of the profits, see what they say. That's business folks owners should have more money and control than their employees[/quote]

[quote=redskins5044;788661]Name me a company where the the employees get more than a 50% of the companies profit? not many.

All of this is a joke to me, millionaires suing billionaires. I see where Manning, Brady and Brees are suing the NFL. Shouldn't the players that should be suing the ones who dont get the big contracts. Cry me a River NFL players. How about you save your money and have a good investment plan. I am sick of hearing that you players but your body on the line and take all the risk. We have members of the U.S. military that put there life on the lines and put there bodies on the line.

The NFL minimum in 2010 was 355,000. Most people would love to make that much in 7 years let alone 1 year as a bench warmer.[/quote]

I think both of you need to read my post #314. Stop comparing this to some normal business. It's not. It's not even remotely close and you know why? Because they are the business and they aren't replaceable. You (and I) are so we'll never have that leverage.

Let me explain something. If you had a talent that couldn't be duplicated in the world and your job made BILLIONS off of you and they tried to short change you, what would you do? Would you take their word on it that their profit margins were declining. Mind you, you have made this company rich beyond it's wildest imagination. My guess is no you would not. You'd demand to see proof or you'd walk away and take your talent elsewhere.

Can you replace the Rolling Stones? No.
Can you replace Jimmie Johnson(nascar)? No.
Can you replace Peyton Manning? No.
Can you replace Joe the Plumber? Yes.
Can you replace Dale the lawyer? Yes.
Can you replace Chris Johnson? No.
Can you replace Kanye West? No.


See. The average joes (you and i) dont' have that luxury, they do. Stop comparing your trade (or employer) to theirs.

The players, as a group - as I referred to them- do make hundreds of millions, in fact they make 4billion, but I was comparing to those players who were playing the last time the union decertified, and I don't know the exact amounts players made in the late 80s and 90s , so I figured that it was safe to say current players, as a group, are making hundreds of millions more than those in the past eras. Hope that clarifies my point for you.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=redskins5044;788666]Then why are Manning, Brady and Brees the front runners for the lawsuit. The general public wont have sympathy for these guys, they make hundreds of millions of dollars.


I dont call making about 300,000 dollars a year making squat. The players play a game the puts there body in danger. If they dont want to get hurt then dont play this "GAME" for a living.[/quote]

They are front runners on the lawsuit because they are leaders and representatives. You realize that a rookie is even on the list.

Also involved in bringing the lawsuit: San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson, Minnesota linebacker Ben Leber and defensive end Brian Robison, New England guard Logan Mankins, New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora, Kansas City linebacker Mike Vrabel, and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year's draft.

These guys are collectively suing on behalf of the players. The purpose was to have well known guys, to obscure guys, to guys who haven't even played a snap yet.

So you are fine with some rich asshole sitting in the owners box pulling down 400 million a year on profit alone (and worth over a billion dollars), but it boils your blood to see guys who put their health on the line to make 300k? Think about that for a second. Just think. America's mindset is warped. Also, 300k in the grand scheme of things when talking about 9 billion is "squat". It's huge to us because our talent (whatever it may be) doesn't demand that type of compensation.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788669]The players, as a group - as I referred to them- do make hundreds of millions, in fact they make 4billion, but I was comparing to those players who were playing the last time the union decertified, and I don't know the exact amounts players made in the late 80s and 90s , so I figured that it was safe to say current players, as a group, are making hundreds of millions more than those in the past eras. Hope that clarifies my point for you.[/quote]

Gotcha.


Point still is, 1696 guys have to split 4 billion. 32 guys get to split 5 billion. Which side is making out better?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

This is getting to be a very....emotional issue and seriously straying from any semblance of fact? I am not really sure how this differs much from any Union/Mgmt bargaining situation?
Workers.....work and provide the product and get all they can from the Mgmt......
Mgmt.....manages the workers to produce the product and get all they can from the workers.......
A bit simplistic, but true nonetheless? Is that somehow different from what is going on here?

Also nc_skins, let the players go to the cfl or ufl or open a new league see what revenues they pull in versus the nfl with replacement players with the tv contracts in place, the stadium leases signed and all the other parts that the ownership maintains. I am willing to bet that the players as a group won't be matching that 4billion dollar mark. While the NFL and established teams would. You may think the owners simply twiddle their thumbs, but they have they established credit and name reputation that would win the day. Out of the 1700 players there are a handful that are true exceptionals, ie manning brees etc but for every manning the league would most likely find a brady in the udfa or fletcher or other man who might not have gotten the chance with the current rosters in place.

As for the owners opting out, they followed an agreed upon point in the last cba. The players now have said they don't want to mediate or negotiate. They want to litigate. That is their choice. Both parties have led it to this point neither is a victim and neither deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said before these points have been clearly put out there before: but since you like summaries:

1) nflpa has decertified rather than mediate
2) after decertification smith continued to try and get 10 yrs of data under the false pretense of being a legitimate bargaining entity.
3) players have seen unparallelled salary growth in the last 10 years as the result of a solid advantage gained in the last cba
4) owners acted within their legal rights when they opted out, and both parties could have tried to mediate and solve this issue
5) tom cruise doesn't get 50% of a movie studios box receipt and pavarotti doesn't ask to see all the books at that opera house, only the box office take that he brings in and both pavarotti and the operahouse enjoy success with that arrangement

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I don't think you have to completely take one side in here, I just feel like the owners are slightly guiltier than the players, and have less to lose (and they were making sure that they'd be taken care of with the TV deal insurance money...if I'm saying that correctly). In the end, the failure is from both sides, and the losers in my opinion are:

From the players side: your average to below average player that doesn't make Peyton Manning money.

From the owners side: the assistant coaches, trainers, and regular team staff.

Also screwed, any industry that profits from football. And finally the fans, but it is not like your average fan is losing money in this situation.

Still, tomorrow Jerry Jones and Peyton Manning will have millions in the bank. But your average 3rd stringer, a strength coach, and some secretary in a team is office is going to be sweating bullets not having any type of certainty about their jobs (and their ability to earn money).

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

First off NYSkins, Kanye West? Your crazy Lil Wayne is on another planet compared to kanye..

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Most NFL fans are true to their organization, this is not like the NBA or MLB it's not a player sport. The Redskins for example aren't just a pro football team they are an brand also, players have the privilege to play a GAME for a living. Yes I understand they are very gifted And I'm not saying I can play pro football BUT 300,000 is damn good $ for only working 6 months folks period.

Agreed Ruhskins.

Both sides simply played out their hands, and,in my opinion, tried to slight the other side rather than work together as reasonable and rational people might. When a federal mediator who has an 84% succes rate simply throws up his hands in dismay like Cohen did, you know either one or both parties just aren't interested in working it out.

And all those that you mentioned who are not the millionaire/billionaire manning/snyder people will see their livelihood and lives hurt.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;788677]First off NYSkins, Kanye West? Your crazy Lil Wayne is on another planet compared to kanye..[/quote]

Music is more then rapping with autotune.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788674]Also nc_skins, let the players go to the cfl or ufl or open a new league see what revenues they pull in versus the nfl with replacement players with the tv contracts in place, the stadium leases signed and all the other parts that the ownership maintains. I am willing to bet that the players as a group won't be matching that 4billion dollar mark. While the NFL and established teams would.[/quote]

I assure you, any market that arose out of the NFL destruction would hit those same figures if not more. Why? Because we the fans demand that type of entertainment, and another league (with the same current NFL players) could provide that same entertainment. (same rules..etc.) The only thing that would change is the letters NFL to (insert 3 letters of your choice). Why? Because TV would still pay that same figure to that league if fans wanted it. (and we would) Don't believe me? Try switching the NFL and UFL players. Would you continue to watch the Redskins? Probably not, and neither would I. Why? Because of the talent level drop off.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788674]Out of the 1700 players there are a handful that are true exceptionals, ie manning brees etc but for every manning the league would most likely find a brady in the udfa or fletcher or other man who might not have gotten the chance with the current rosters in place. [/quote]

No, all 1696 NFL players are exceptional. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in the NFL. Remember, the NFL is the best of the best so if you aren't in that group, chances are you aren't one of the best. It's really that simple. Now, that changes annually with newer/fresher talent, but that number still stays the same. (1696)

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788674]As for the owners opting out, they followed an agreed upon point in the last cba. The players now have said they don't want to mediate or negotiate. They want to litigate. That is their choice. Both parties have led it to this point neither is a victim and neither deserves the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]

That is not true, and I quite frankly don't even know where you came up with that nonsense. The owners have been denying the players union to see the books for 2 years now all the while claiming profit loss and telling them to "trust them". The NFLPA has no other recourse but to do litigation when the owners aren't willing to concede to that request. Nobody is going to negotiate off of "trust me" when it comes to money. Would you? Nope. Both parties haven't led to this. I showed you in detail how the owners have been preparing to opt out since they signed the last CBA in 2006. The players were fine with the current CBA, they are willing to go back to the current CBA. I think you are failing to realize that whole concept.



[quote=CRedskinsRule;788674]1) nflpa has decertified rather than mediate
2) after decertification smith continued to try and get 10 yrs of data under the false pretense of being a legitimate bargaining entity.
3) players have seen unparallelled salary growth in the last 10 years as the result of a solid advantage gained in the last cba
4) owners acted within their legal rights when they opted out, and both parties could have tried to mediate and solve this issue
5) tom cruise doesn't get 50% of a movie studios box receipt and pavarotti doesn't ask to see all the books at that opera house, only the box office take that he brings in and both pavarotti and the operahouse enjoy success with that arrangement[/quote]

1) Wrong. They decertified after every last effort was exhausted. The owners have denied them access to the books for two years and still weren't going to show them the books even at this last deadline. Read the quote from the federal mediator below.

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936]NFLPA decertifies, files antitrust suit against league - ESPN[/url]
[quote]"The parties have not achieved an overall agreement, nor have they been able to resolve the strongly held competing positions that separated them on core issues, mediator George Cohen said. "[U][B]No useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time.[/B][/U]"[/quote]

2) as far as that Smith claim? What? Here is what Smith had to say.

[quote]"I would dare any one of you to pull out any economic indicator that would suggest that the National Football League is falling on hard times," NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said. "[U][B]The last 14 days, the National Football League has said, 'Trust us.' But when it came time for verification, they told us it was none of our business.[/B][/U]"[/quote]

3) 1696 players splitting 4 billion compared to 32 people splitting 5 billion. Who's making out better?

4)Actually the owners didn't handle things legally hence Doty ruled that the NFL acted against the players when it negotiated its TV contract.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/sports/football/02nfl.html[/url]
They were trying to gain all the leverage when they opted out so they'd still get 4 billion even during the lockout. Also the players are within their legal rights to decertify after all attempts at negotiation have been exhausted. (see fed mediator's quote)

5) Tom Cruise gets a fee and most likely a percentage of the overall profits and dvd sales. I bet you they do indeed see the numbers on those profits. Also, Pavarotti didn't have to operate like that since he wasn't under a contract with one opera house. However, if he was and said opera house was making money hand over fist and asked him to reduce his pay, I imagine he would have or left. (as would any of us)

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[IMG]http://www.flylip.com/news/images/82-1299427227-Charlie-Sheen-Winning.jpg[/IMG]


speaking of winning, the real winners in all of this are the douchebag lawyers.
losers = everybody else

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;788682][IMG]http://www.flylip.com/news/images/82-1299427227-Charlie-Sheen-Winning.jpg[/IMG]


speaking of winning, the real winners in all of this are the douchebag lawyers.
losers = everybody else[/QUOTE]

This is the first thing you have said that I agree with 100%.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Alright, t-minus 13 minutes until the end of football.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

12 minutes

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;788685]12 minutes[/quote]

3 minutes....

So goodell is now making $1? Man that ain't fun!
Lockout has begun

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

TO be honest not all that disappointed if there is no football, the main reason being I don't see us being a contender, and second the NFL is probably the most overhyped "product" on the planet, along with the NBA. It seems the more money that gets involved the less valuable the product. I rather watch a handful of well oiled football machines than a bunch of mediocre teams that limp into the playoffs. Now with Indy about to go down the tubes, and New England probably next, we will be stuck watching the Steelers/ Ravens or heaven help us, the Jets in the SB for the next few years maybe. God awful boring football. Hopefully the Saints can get it together and become a juggernaut again. God I really do miss the 80's!!!!!!!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788679]Agreed Ruhskins.

Both sides simply played out their hands, and,in my opinion, tried to slight the other side rather than work together as reasonable and rational people might. When a federal mediator who has an 84% succes rate simply throws up his hands in dismay like Cohen did, you know either one or both parties just aren't interested in working it out.

And all those that you mentioned who are not the millionaire/billionaire manning/snyder people will see their livelihood and lives hurt.[/quote]


League minimum is helluva lot better than anyobdy up here in Detroit is making working 40+ hours a week. As for those hotdog people, they will just work more concerts on Sundays. NFL.com will be experiencing some big time issues, but that doesn't affect too many Americans since the stuff is made in Asia anyway. As for the fans? THey almost deserve to be screwed. They have put themselves into a position to be taken for granted. Like I said in my previous post the more money that is made in the NFL seems to be directly inverted to the quality of the product put out on the field on most Sundays. Just sloppy ball being played, with the exceptions of only a small number of teams. Only team in the current NFL that could say touch the Cowboys or 49ers of the 90s is New England, and I am not sure if they could even hang. Sorry guys, I am just calling it as I see it. This explains why the NFL hype machine has been kicked into overdrive for the past decade, the lack of any real teams that are playing to the level they should be.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Holy Shit guys i didnt believe this would actually happen.

Millionaires vs Billionaires i guess. Now there is the lawsuit by Tom Brady, Manning, and Drew Brees against the owners. The players union has decertified, and in general all hell is breaking loose.

What happens next? can a court order lift the lockout as some have suggested? Does the NFL win the appeal? Is there going to be an absolute total work stoppage??

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

It's just so hypocritical. Talking about how the fans are tired of paying full price for preseason games as justification for an 18 game season. It's like damn, if only there was a way to not have fans pay full price for preseason games. Common sense solution, stop charging full price for preseason games. NFL owners solution, turn two games into full speed regular season games.

The real problem is money withdrawal. Owners have gotten so use to cashing in on those preseason games that they don't want to stop screwing the fans over at the register.

By the way can someone please explain this 18 game proposal that the NFL submitted recently? Because if I read it right on NFL Network it was that 11 and 12 would be 16 games and then the NFL Owners would decide on an extended season for 2013 and beyond. Please tell me I read it wrong. Heck please tell me that the NFL has given up on even pursuing an 18 game season. The fact that less practices and offseason contact drills is possibly being used as a bargaining chip for an extended season is sickening.

Haven't you assholes been presented with enough literature about how damaged these players are after they leave the game? Shouldn't less practice and contact drills be a given?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

And another thing.

Owners are acting like they have a raw deal. What other major team sport can you sign a player to these days and only be responsible for around 30%-40% of the total value of a contract (and thats assuming you're at least an entrenched starter with pro bowl possibilities)? The Dodgers have to go to the court of law to prove that Manny was faking an injury just to get back a portion of his money. I don't know enough about the NBA to make a firm and fast statement but from what I have read releasing a player before his time is up is a pain in the ass once summer workouts are done. In the NFL they simply release you with minimal consequences. No arbitration

You don't have to worry about supporting a farm team. Sure maybe you make a couple of donations to schools with interesting prospects in hopes of getting an edge on draft day but the bottom line is you don't owe the NCAA anything for giving kids an edumacation into how to work the system.

What other league is able to charge millions for 30 seconds of air time?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

First lockout of my life basically, I was born in 86 so I don't remember the last lockout.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;788697]First lockout of my life basically, I was born in 86 so I don't remember the last lockout.[/quote]

[url]http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/padlockap.jpg?w=250[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=freddyg12;788692]This HAD to happen I think. Even if a deal is made via mediation & the suits are dropped, both sides needed to take this step. The owners got themselves in this by agreeing to this deal in 06. The players don't want to give up something for no apparent reason. The courts, if only the threat, are the only way to decide this.

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

Can I get an Amen?!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=freddyg12;788692]This HAD to happen I think. Even if a deal is made via mediation & the suits are dropped, both sides needed to take this step. The owners got themselves in this by agreeing to this deal in 06. The players don't want to give up something for no apparent reason. The courts, if only the threat, are the only way to decide this.

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

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

[QUOTE=BigHairedAristocrat;788720]If this "HAD" to happen, then why The 24 hour and 7 day extensions? This did not HAVE to happen. A deal could have been worked out if both sides wanted to work one out. The problem is, they didn't. They wanted to give the appearance of wanting a deal. I'm disgusted with both sides, but mostly the players side, specifically demaurice smith. the guy strikes me as a total d bag.[/QUOTE]

Exactly my feelings.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;788720]If this "HAD" to happen, then why The 24 hour and 7 day extensions? This did not HAVE to happen. A deal could have been worked out if both sides wanted to work one out. The problem is, they didn't. They wanted to give the appearance of wanting a deal. I'm disgusted with both sides, but mostly the players side, specifically demaurice smith. [B]the guy strikes me as a total d bag[/B].[/quote]You crystallized my thoughts eloquently, especially the D. Smith part. Here's the guy's bio. This explains a lot. The NFL players really f-ed up bringing this guy on. D. Smith is taking this to his comfort zone, the courts. That isn't how businesses function profitably.

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Defensewins;788665]FRPGL - Because John Mara is an even keeled guy? That is a great reason.
Rather than basing your opinion on emotion or because you like this guy over that guy, how about base your opinion on facts?
Both sides have agreed this whole thing came down to one thing.....the owners claimed they lost money. Based on that claim they were asking for concessions from the players and basing thier entire argument. The players said that is fine and if you owners are losing money we will gladly give back some of our take. But before we do that blindly we need the owners to OPEN YOUR BOOKS AND PROVE YOU ARE LOSING MONEY!!!!!!!!
I do not care how even keeled John MAra is, the man crush you have on Roger Goddell or how much you can not stand DeSmith, base your opinion on the facts of the disagreement points and not a popularity contest.
Both side came out with prepared speechs today, those speeches mean nothing.
They are political bullshit.
The owners opened the door to to the claim they are losing money. They made a mistake because in order prove their point they have to show the proof. You can not just take a persons word on it in negotiations.[/quote]

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

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

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]You crystallized my thoughts eloquently, especially the D. Smith part. Here's the guy's bio. This explains a lot. The NFL players really f-ed up bringing this guy on. D. Smith is taking this to his comfort zone, the courts. That isn't how businesses function profitably.[/quote]

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


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]Let me add a few things;
- The NFLPA walked away from the table, not the owners.[/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 parties have not achieved an overall agreement, nor have they been able to resolve the strongly held competing positions that separated them on core issues, mediator George Cohen said. [U][B]"No useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time."[/B][/U] [/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=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]- A majority of the issues were agreed upon (mostly in the NFLPAs favor), and the owners came way off their initial additional $ 1B "off-the-top". The final amount in dispute was more like $ 185M.[/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=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]- This was stated by NFLPA folks and I heard it this morning from NFLPA team reps. The contention is that the players aren't going to agree to ANY "salary reduction" or additional amount off-the-top unless the owners completely open the books of all 32 NFL teams.[/quote]

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

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]I've heard little but rhetoric and name-calling from the NFLPA side, the owners were very specific as to what was offered. It sure sounds like the owners put a very fair deal on the table and the NFLPA is simply trying to gain leverage in the courts. F the NFLPA, F D. Smith.[/quote]

People hear what they want to hear.

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

Apparently, Richardson was particularly sarcastic when Manning started to talk about players' safety. At one point, Richardson evidently said, "What do you know about player safety?"
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/jerry-richardson-peyton-manning-drew-brees_n_822988.html]Jerry Richardson Insults Peyton Manning, Drew Brees: Panthers Owner Rips Star Quarterbacks[/url]
[/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. 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=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]I don't want to hear that the NFL players are "partners" in the business of the NFL. They are employees, very talented, very well paid employees, but still employees. For any of you siding with the players, let me ask the following:[/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=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]- If the economy hits another downturn are the NFL players going to give back some of their salaries to off-set the reduced profitability of the teams?[/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=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]- If a small market team that is seeing reduced profits is the NFLPA going to provide some sort of compensation for that team.[/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=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]- If a new stadium is built and that particular team is having issues making the payments, is the NFLPA going to make concessions to help.[/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.

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=Slingin Sammy 33;788727]This is all about D. Smith not wanting to look like he lost ground in his first negotiation with the NFL. No question if he went back to the NFL players and sold this deal to them they would take it and we'd be back in business. BHA is 100% right D. Smith is simply a douche-lawyer with an NFL sized ego. He needs to realize his job is not to squeeze every last dime he can out of the NFL owners. He needs to look out for the players and also protect the golden-goose business that puts food on the table for thousands of people.[/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.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=FRPLG;788730] By the way, I agree the owners needed to open the books. Oh and by the way...they offered to. The players were asking for more than they reasonably needed. [/quote]

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

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

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

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

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=FRPLG;788730]Hey donkey. READ. I blamed the the wasting of time in the last two weeks on the players since a person who I believe is pretty honest assessed that the players were simply going through the motions. That's it. I never said anything about what you're talking about. By the way, I agree the owners needed to open the books. Oh and by the way...they offered to. The players were asking for more than they reasonably needed. There's plenty of blame to go around. But at the end of the day the players wasted everyone's time and provided false hope by not negotiating in good faith it seems.[/quote]

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