http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ast-offer.html
Now we're talkin!
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ast-offer.html
Now we're talkin!
confused as I thought you were the far side hater of the owners
So what's worse? Slavery or the worst deal in the history of professional sports? Apparently the worst deal in the history of professional sports, according to Smith.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeMaurice Smith
The kind of childish, idiotic statements being made by the players and their "representatives" only underscore how impossible negotiation with them is by reasonable, able-minded, educated people. It must have been like talking to monkeys.
...and everytime someone from the nfl makes a statement about what was offered they're called liars. don't know what to believe.
What is the players proposal?
litigationQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony Oday
Thank you for making the owner's case for them. The NFL's charge before the NLRB is that union bargained in bad faith all along, with no actual interest in getting a deal done and instead preferring litigation. If the NLRB agrees with you, this will potentially undo the NFL's decertification and put the union in a significantly disadvantageous position, staring up at a lockout that they have no recourse to end beyond bargaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by rbaloha
Its no different than the owner's always wanting a lockout. Both sides followed through. Please do not respond with blah blah. Mahalo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurker64
Interesting question to which I haven't yet heard an answer. In my opinion, the player's proposal is probably "status quo" to the last deal (not the last year). Everyone knows the owners opted out because they thought the deal favored the players too much. So I would imagine the players are using the last deal as their starting point. Now, since they haven't really seemed to counter-propose anything, I don't think their position has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Oday
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurker64
FIVE CLAP WINNER POST IMO
a member of the echo chamber chimes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
The key distinction is that from the NLRB's perspective, lockouts are legitimate. They're identical to strikes, except they're perpetrated by management and not labor. But there's nothing a priori unacceptable about a lockout, since one can always be avoided (and ended) by negotiating and it's the NLRB's goal to encourage such. The NLRB, however, has a vested interest in preventing sham-decertification-coupled-with-lawsuit as a negotiating practice since it is an inherently unfair negotiating strategy (and it ties up federal courts with an issue that should really just be resolved in a board room).Quote:
Originally Posted by rbaloha
In principle, if a union should be allowed to strike then management should be allowed to lock out labor. If one isn't allowable, then the other shouldn't be either.
You are correct under Pash's opinion, "A lockout is accepted practice under labor law, and that collective bargaining, rather than litigation, remains the best way to settle the sides' differences."
here is a copy of the commish's letter...
http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/11031..._3_17_2011.pdf
here is a copy of the player's response to it...
http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/19...ond/#more-1245
I heard about this on espn radio with John Clayton and Andrew Brandt. Brandt contends the owner's latest "proposal" are the "easy give" items in terms of pension and player safety. Revenue split will always remain the key and most contentious issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbgary
Currently only counsel from each side can negotiate until the April 6 hearing. Brandt stated litigation speeds up the process as opposed to negotiation only. According to Brandt
Lockout illegal -- 2010 contract remains and the 2011 season can start. Negotiations concurrently restart for a new CBA . Thank goodness Gov. Walker is involved.
Lockout legal -- Negotiations for a new CBA can resume ASAP.
THE PARTY OF NO!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurker64
More stuff from Brandt who studied the "proposal." The salary cap increase is paid to pensions -- not to current player salaries. TV revenue in several years is scheduled to increase from $4 billion to $8 billion. Future proposed salary caps are unreflective of this increased TV revenue.
From what I've been able to glean, the kerfuffle over the salary cap proposed last friday is a microcosm of the whole mess.
So the league initially proposes a salary cap structure, and the players propose a more generous one. Last friday, the league says essentially "okay, well... what about this number in the middle?" and what the league presented did not address how the cap might grow if the game grows beyond projections. So instead of asking "well, we might be able to work with that provided the cap increases x% of the total money the league makes beyond projections" the NFLPA presumed that the league was saying "you get none of any money above and beyond projections" and storms out in a huff to file a lawsuit.
I've honestly never seen two groups of adult men, with highly paid lawyers on staff to advise them, less capable of actually communicating with each other.
The players' response had the language and stance of a temper tantrum. "You didn't address this and this and this." Well, make a counter offer. For example, what if Moodys is wrong? What is your offer for percentage share of revenue.
If anyone knows of a responsible counter-offer that the players made, I'd appreciate the link. Otherwise, I have to believe those who said the players were interested in forcing litigation from the start.
Players always wanted litigation since according to Brandt it speeds up the negotiating process. Again its no different than the owners always wanting a lock-out to prevent the 2010 contract being enforced for the 2011 season. Show me the money!Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand