Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-20-2011, 01:03 PM
Lurker64

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

I agree with the supposition that the NFLPA believes that they will get a better deal in court.

What I am questioning, however, is whether the NFLPA will actually get a better deal in court.

It's entirely possible that the NFLPA loses in court, and has to accept a much worse deal, which is why I support negotiation over litigation. Litigation carries risk, negotiation doesn't.

What I am hoping is that the NFLPA simply hopes to use the initial courtroom decisions to move leverage and thereby get a deal done. However, if Judge Nelson doesn't find that granting a preliminary injunction blocking the lockout is appropriate (after all, no game checks are being lost) I'm not sure what the NFLPA will do now that they've lost considerable leverage in this gambit.
03-20-2011, 01:07 PM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

I am convinced they believe the lawsuit is to their advantage. I have been arguing all along that they stonewalled the negotiation process to get to where they are right now. However, I am not convinced that it will work out the way they hope, if litigation carries through to the end. It might be that all the players want is the uncertainty of litigation, hoping it will cause the owners to relent on a few more issues. Filing the action doesn't mean they want it carried through to the end necessarily.
03-20-2011, 01:31 PM
ThunderDan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbgary

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

What complete shit by Goodell. Writing a letter to the players telling them this stuff. There was one reason Goodell wrote this letter and one reason only, he is trying to set the players against themselves.

When someone starts a letter the way Goodell did and then starts lecturing about all the OWNERS were giving up you can tell it's a BS piece of garbage. The NFLPA shouldn't have even responded with a letter. They should have written a letter to the players addressing the points and said nothing to the owners.

Goodell states in the letter that their is only one way to resolve the differences and that is in goodfaith. That there needs to be mutual respect and open communication. But the owners make claims on how the are losing profitablility but will only the show the players a fraction of the total financial picture from their books and records. If the owners are truely losing their ability to make profit show the players. As long as the players are only able to negotiate while knowing part of the picture the commish's letter and promous rhetoric is simply puffery. Empty words hoping to sway public opinion and split the players.
03-20-2011, 02:28 PM
Lurker64

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.
03-20-2011, 02:52 PM
ThunderDan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurker64

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.

The intention of that letter was never to get the players back to the table. Why lecture to the players then about everything the OWNERs were giving up? If he was sincere that is not the letter he should have sent.

The battle is going to court, everyone knows this. No letter by Goodell can change that. And as much wishing and thinking that Goodell has the best interest in the sport he simply doesn't. He is the watchdog for the OWNERs.
03-21-2011, 09:21 AM
Brandon494

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinBasket

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.

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.

You on the side of rich white folks, who would have ever thought?
03-21-2011, 09:38 AM
RashanGary

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurker64

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.

All they have to do is give the full financial picture to teh players and it would already be done. If this is how the NFL wants it, this is how they'll get it. Disclosure or litigation. It's up to them. The owners chose this. The players are using good common sense. Teh last time they went to court the financials were shown. Whether posters here agree or not, they think they're going to get a better deal.

I'm sure they'd rather the owners just show the financials and they get back to the bargaining table, but if they won't I think they're ready to miss a season and go to court over this.
03-21-2011, 09:43 AM
SkinBasket

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon494

You on the side of rich white folks, who would have ever thought?

You trying and failing to make this about race, who would have ever thought?
03-21-2011, 10:25 AM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

All they have to do is give the full financial picture to teh players and it would already be done. If this is how the NFL wants it, this is how they'll get it. Disclosure or litigation. It's up to them. The owners chose this. The players are using good common sense. Teh last time they went to court the financials were shown. Whether posters here agree or not, they think they're going to get a better deal.

I'm sure they'd rather the owners just show the financials and they get back to the bargaining table, but if they won't I think they're ready to miss a season and go to court over this.

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.
03-21-2011, 10:49 AM
Brandon494

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinBasket

You trying and failing to make this about race, who would have ever thought?

Not really hard to do with the material you post on this board.
03-21-2011, 10:55 AM
SkinBasket

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon494

Not really hard to do with the material you post on this board.

Then quote me.

You've demonstrated your outstanding ability to race bait and call others racist when your arguments fail. It's easy, right? Painting me with my own words to show the world I'm a racist can't be that hard, eh?

Unless, of course, you're full of shit.
03-21-2011, 11:21 AM
sharpe1027

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patler

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.

Good observation. If the players think their hand is really strong in litigation, they might have wanted to play their hand. The Owners have a lot of potential liability.
03-21-2011, 12:54 PM
Guiness

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patler

If you are responding to my last question, you lost me with your answer. The number doesn't matter. Is it fair if the owners profits grew more than the players' income, when the players income doubled in 10 years? Keep in mind we are not talking about low paying jobs ro begin with.

I don't think 'fair' is the right word to use when it comes to these negotiations. Kind of like your thread asking how much is fair profit for the owners. By my estimation, both sides are getting well beyond 'fair'.

I don't like your fundamental question about the player's income increase being enough. Are you suggesting they're getting enough, and they should be happy? Yes, players have seen enormous salary increases, and I assume owners have seen enormous profit increases. The problem is that the owners want to roll back the number the player's salaries are calculated from, but won't tell them why.
03-21-2011, 08:39 PM
RashanGary

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patler

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.

What do you think they really want?
03-22-2011, 02:53 AM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiness

I don't think 'fair' is the right word to use when it comes to these negotiations. Kind of like your thread asking how much is fair profit for the owners. By my estimation, both sides are getting well beyond 'fair'.

I don't like your fundamental question about the player's income increase being enough. Are you suggesting they're getting enough, and they should be happy? Yes, players have seen enormous salary increases, and I assume owners have seen enormous profit increases. The problem is that the owners want to roll back the number the player's salaries are calculated from, but won't tell them why.

I thought it was clear that "fair" in these discussions means the owners relative to the players and the players relative to the owners.

Does it matter if they roll back the manner in which the number calculated from is determined, if the net effect is really a substantial increase to the players? As I mentioned previously, giving the owners more off the top to increase Total Revenue (however defined in a new CBA) can result in an even greater income for players.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone, or blindside them after they respond. I will restate my last question:

As between the owners and the players, is it only "fair" to the players if the owners profits increase no more percentage-wise than the players income? Or, yet another way, - If the players experience a huge increase, is it fundamentally unfair to the players if the owners' profits increase by an even larger percentage?
03-22-2011, 03:00 AM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patler

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

What do you think they really want?

As I stated before, it could be any number of things. Eliminating the salary cap, and abolishing or further limiting the use of franchise tags and other restrictions on player movement (ERFAs, RFAs, etc.) would seem to be the most likely targets for them. If I had to pick one, it would probably be the salary cap, which the union probably sees as an artificial ceiling on the total money that the league will spend on players.
03-22-2011, 06:54 AM
RashanGary

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patler

As I stated before, it could be any number of things. Eliminating the salary cap, and abolishing or further limiting the use of franchise tags and other restrictions on player movement (ERFAs, RFAs, etc.) would seem to be the most likely targets for them. If I had to pick one, it would probably be the salary cap, which the union probably sees as an artificial ceiling on the total money that the league will spend on players.

I think the best way to get the most money is to grow the league and keep it on top. Parity helps with that. 18 games would help with that. Revenue sharing helps with that. The NFL has been so successful it seems in large part because they put growing the league in front of all else. That and the product rocks.

If they want to do away with the cap, I think a tax system like basketball would be effective at giving a couple teams a slight edge while still maintaining parity. They could also make the 5th year unrestricted instead of the 4th to keep players with their teams longer and give them more time to work out deals.

I do think having the most popular teams in it a little more than the others is good for the league too. Cinnci probably has 1/10 or less of the fans Dallas has. The NFL benefits when Dallas is good.

0.01-5.00% over cap = 30% tax on anything over
5.01-10.00% over cap= 50% tax . . . .
10.01-15.00% over cap = 70% tax
15.01 - 20.00% over cap = 100%
20.01 - 25.00% over cap = 200%
25.01 - 30.00% over cap = 300%
30.00 - 40.00% over cap = 400%
40 - 50 = 500%

I think this would allow for the teams with the most money (fans) to spend slightly more, keeping the NFL more interesting to more people, but not so drastically unfair that the small teams can't be in it every year too if they have a good GM and coach leading the way.

Baseball has one team spending 30 mil and another spending 300 mil. Comparing that to my proposal, you'd probably see the smallest teams around 100 mil with the cap at 150 mil and the largest teams at 180 mil. Small teams win in baseball against a much wider gap in spending. This would keep parity, but also have more fans interested more often.

If my main goal is growing the league (money pot), this would be my proposal.
03-22-2011, 08:42 AM
Pugger

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderDan

What complete shit by Goodell. Writing a letter to the players telling them this stuff. There was one reason Goodell wrote this letter and one reason only, he is trying to set the players against themselves.

When someone starts a letter the way Goodell did and then starts lecturing about all the OWNERS were giving up you can tell it's a BS piece of garbage. The NFLPA shouldn't have even responded with a letter. They should have written a letter to the players addressing the points and said nothing to the owners.

Goodell states in the letter that their is only one way to resolve the differences and that is in goodfaith. That there needs to be mutual respect and open communication. But the owners make claims on how the are losing profitablility but will only the show the players a fraction of the total financial picture from their books and records. If the owners are truely losing their ability to make profit show the players. As long as the players are only able to negotiate while knowing part of the picture the commish's letter and promous rhetoric is simply puffery. Empty words hoping to sway public opinion and split the players.

Isn't going to litigation a way for the players and their reps to get the OWNERS against themselves?

I truly do not give a rat's azz about either side - I only care about what will help the only team in the NFL that I give a damn about stay competitive in the future and bring home more Lombardi trophies.
03-22-2011, 09:40 AM
SkinBasket

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

Baseball has one team spending 30 mil and another spending 300 mil. Comparing that to my proposal, you'd probably see the smallest teams around 100 mil with the cap at 150 mil and the largest teams at 180 mil. Small teams win in baseball against a much wider gap in spending. This would keep parity, but also have more fans interested more often.

This might be one of the dumbest things you've ever posted.

There is no parity in baseball. There are brief exceptions which are quickly overwhelmed by the norm. If you want 10 of the 12 play-off teams to be the same every year, then by all means, lets have a system like baseball. It'll be very exciting for the largest markets with the richest owners every year to wait to see which 1 or 2 teams from the bottom 2/3 of the league they be playing that year.

If you haven't noticed, money buys wins (if it didn't, teams wouldn't pay more for the better players). Wins build marketable popularity. Popularity generates money. You should be noticing a circular pattern about now. Here, just in case you didn't:

Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity ->
03-22-2011, 09:50 AM
RashanGary

Go re-read my post, skinbasket. If you don't change your perception of what I said, we really can't have a conversation. I can't write words clear enough for you to understand them, or maybe you just skimmed and missed it.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page