8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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



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

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

NFL's Statement On NFLPA Decertification - Battle Red Blog

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

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

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

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

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

Personally I think the funniest thing about Smith is how quickly he can go from Gloater to Victim.
DeMaurice Smith Has It Backwards - Bleeding Green Nation

[Dirtbag59]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

rpiotr01 says:
May 17, 2011 2:46 PM
Players are too emotional and competitive, which is why they’re worthless in the process of collective bargaining. It generally makes sense to turn negotiations over to lawyers, but in this case they chose the wrong kind of lawyers. Both Smith and Kessler are litigators – their world view is win or lose, no area in between. In their practices, winning meant their client might keep everything, while losing meant they might go out of business or go to jail.

They should have hired corporate lawyers instead. These people are used to negotiating deals between two parties interested in making a deal. Of course they fight for the best deal possible, but at the end of the day they know they’re there to make a deal happen, not to prevent one.

The fact that the players hired these two goons tells you everything. It was a mistake. No one on their side is emotionally capable of making a deal. They just can’t see the situation as anything other than black or white. It’s a shame, because there is an opportunity to do something right now.

They need to get their heads out of the litigation cloud and make a counter offer. Go back and forth, that’s how these things work. It’s like buying a car, you don’t get insulted when the dealer asks you to pay MSRP, you make an offer until you get something you can live with. Just please, try, that’s all anyone is asking

[GTripp0012]

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.

[GTripp0012]

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:

NFLLockout.com » What Is This Lockout NOT About?

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.

[GTripp0012]

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.

[Dirtbag59]

My beef is as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NFLPA, particularly De Smith

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

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

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

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

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


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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

My beef is as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NFLPA, particularly De Smith

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

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

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

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

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


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

F'ing brilliant. Winner.

[SmootSmack]

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

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[SmootSmack]

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

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

Warpath 89'


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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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

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

[SBXVII]

“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.”

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.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

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.