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

[Patler]

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

WOW! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the players response! If anyone needed more evidence that the NFLPA was not negotiating, but stalling, this letter is proof.

All players did was complain, criticize and demean offers put on the table by the owners. Not so much as a comment about a counteroffer from the players. Nothing that the players did in an effort to narrow the gap. It appears the "negotiations" went like this:

Players: "Make an offer"
Owners: "Here's a proposed framework."
Players: "Not good enough. Make a better offer."
Owners: "How about this?"
Players: "Nope, still not acceptable."
Owners: "Maybe this?"
Players: "Still not good enough. See you in court."

I would have expected the players to respond by explaining how they, in good faith, had tried to work toward a settlement. They offered absolutely no evidence of that.

[SkinBasket]

WOW! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the players response! If anyone needed more evidence that the NFLPA was not negotiating, but stalling, this letter is proof.

All players did was complain, criticize and demean offers put on the table by the owners. Not so much as a comment about a counteroffer from the players. Nothing that the players did in an effort to narrow the gap. It appears the "negotiations" went like this:

Players: "Make an offer"
Owners: "Here's a proposed framework."
Players: "Not good enough. Make a better offer."
Owners: "How about this?"
Players: "Nope, still not acceptable."
Owners: "Maybe this?"
Players: "Still not good enough. See you in court."

I would have expected the players to respond by explaining how they, in good faith, had tried to work toward a settlement. They offered absolutely no evidence of that.

Once again, it really appears that neither the players or their representatives had the mental capacity to negotiate. This letter evidences that the player position has been little more than "you didn't give us what we demanded." I don't think it was a communication problem, as someone suggested earlier. I think it was a understanding problem on the players part, of what exactly was being offered, what the consequences of the offer or litigation are (just like a couple folks here), and that when they broke from negotiations, they needed a plan to move forward that didn't involve making idiots out of themselves and their position on a daily basis. Like I said, like dealing with monkeys. Greedy monkeys.

[swede]

Like I said, like dealing with monkeys. Greedy monkeys.

Simian Rice?

[ThunderDan]

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.

[Pugger]

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.

[Guiness]

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.

That's a different take, Pugger. Nice to see some different conjecture.

It's no secret that Jerry Jones and some of the other owners of rich franchises begrudge the revenue sharing. Put the owners in a room, and they'll tear each other to pieces. If the CBA was thrown out in its entirety, its possible the owners would not come to another similar agreement, and the NFL could end up with a MLB-like system. Certainly in that situation, some players would stand to make a lot more.

Here's another thought on the hidden agenda bandwagon. What about guaranteed contracts? The NFL is unlike other pro-sports leagues in that they don't guarantee contracts. That is certainly something that would be desirable to the players.

[Patler]

Here's another thought on the hidden agenda bandwagon. What about guaranteed contracts? The NFL is unlike other pro-sports leagues in that they don't guarantee contracts. That is certainly something that would be desirable to the players.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is for the union. It would not change how much is spent on the players, it would just alter who gets the money that is spent. Presumably, in the current situation, money saved on a terminated contract that is not guaranteed ends up being spent on signing another player.

That said, the owners last proposal did offer some significant compensation for players the year after they are cut. Sort of a transition payment back to the real world.

[rbaloha1]

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.

[Lurker64]

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.

[mraynrand]

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.

[rbaloha1]

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!

[Lurker64]

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!

Litigation does not speed up the negotiating process. Negotiating speeds up the negotiation process. The players want litigation because they think they can get the best deal that way. Not because it's fair, or because it's efficient, but because that's how they think they can get the best deal. Like the lockout, it's just about creating leverage.

The interesting thing about the litigation strategy, is that if it backfires on the players they will have given the league a whole lot of leverage. Litigation carries risk for everybody involved (except the lawyers.)

[rbaloha1]

Litigation does not speed up the negotiating process. Negotiating speeds up the negotiation process. The players want litigation because they think they can get the best deal that way. Not because it's fair, or because it's efficient, but because that's how they think they can get the best deal. Like the lockout, it's just about creating leverage.

The interesting thing about the litigation strategy, is that if it backfires on the players they will have given the league a whole lot of leverage. Litigation carries risk for everybody involved (except the lawyers.)

B.S. The owners wanted to stall through negotiations. Major issues shall be resolved on April 6 due to litigation not negotiating. True negotiating starts after April 6. Brandt stated on espn radio everything is in place for an agreement -- its early in the negotiating process and both sides do not want to show their hand too early.

Litigation forces the owners to negotiate on more than just the easy takes.

[Lurker64]

When you assume that two sides in a negotiation are fundamentally unwilling to budge, then yes... litigation is pretty much your only means of forcing the other side to agree with you. However, assuming that two parties are fundamentally unwilling to budge in a negotiation defeats the actual purpose of negotiation. Obviously the owners were willing to budge, and if the players weren't then that bodes poorly for their ability to fend off the "sham decertification" charges.

One shouldn't get involved in negotiation unless one is willing to negotiate, and if you can't find anybody on your side who is actually willing to negotiate, then you really need to reconsider your stance.

[swede]

Chimp Bailey? Frank Gorilla?

[Pugger]

To me it is becoming obvious the players want things to stay as they were in the old CBA and the owners say their profits are dropping because of player costs so they opted out. The ONLY thing I care about is what is good for the Green Bay Packers and I fear the players are hell bent on eliminating the salary cap and revenue sharing. As Packer fans we should be leary of this!

[mraynrand]

To me it is becoming obvious the players want things to stay as they were in the old CBA and the owners say their profits are dropping because of player costs so they opted out. The ONLY thing I care about is what is good for the Green Bay Packers and I fear the players are hell bent on eliminating the salary cap and revenue sharing. As Packer fans we should be leary of this!

I agree:

[RashanGary]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand. They want the players to sign something when they don't know if it could have been better or not.

DeMaurice Smith is clearly an amateur compared to the NFL when it comes to public relations. It's too bad, I think he's the more reasonable party. Not opening the books is preposterous. Just take it to litigation where they'll sign a deal with full disclosure. Smart move, but the NFL chose it by not even being reasonable.

I'll bet the players do better with litigation than this deadline offer. Any takers? I hope it stretches into the season. I'd like to see the owners lose a couple billion and then get bent over in court.

[Lurker64]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand.

"The books" are almost never opened in collective bargaining negotiations. Are you saying that fair deals are never actually accomplished during collective bargaining?

[Patler]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand. They want the players to sign something when they don't know if it could have been better or not.

DeMaurice Smith is clearly an amateur compared to the NFL when it comes to public relations. It's too bad, I think he's the more reasonable party. Not opening the books is preposterous. Just take it to litigation where they'll sign a deal with full disclosure. Smart move, but the NFL chose it by not even being reasonable.

I'll bet the players do better with litigation than this deadline offer. Any takers? I hope it stretches into the season. I'd like to see the owners lose a couple billion and then get bent over in court.

There is a fundamental question everyone is ignoring:

If the player's income has increased by 100% in 10 years (which it basically would have under the owners proposal), is it fundamentally unfair if the owners profits grew by 125% (or more) in that same time frame?

You seem to suggest that it is, that fairness is achieved only if the owners profits grow no faster than the players'. I disagree.