I'm saying in litigation they will open the books so the NFLPA would be idiots to just agree to this. Take it all the way. It's their best bet and damn right that's where they wanted to go once they realized the owners were not going to let them see the numbers. Players are getting what they want. Owners aren't. The legal system is on the players side.
Last edited by RashanGary; 03-20-2011 at 12:50 PM.
Why are you so convinced that the books will be opened in litigation. Discovery is an extremely contentious process, and by my count the NFL has better lawyers. It's entirely possible that, in discovery, the NFLPA will get less financial transparency than they were offered at the bargaining table.Originally Posted by JustinHarrell
To assume that the legal system is on the player's side is simply wrong. The legal system is on nobody's side. That's why it's an effective recourse for resolving disputes, since it's (in principle) unbiased.
</delurk>
We don't even know what fairness is, how to measure where it's been or how to predict where it's going, oh unless you take Jerry Jones word in good faith. No thanks, if I'm leading the NFLPA, I'm doing exactly what DeMaurice Smith is doing. Litigation, litigation, litigation. I think they're satisfied with not saying a word to the NFL right now. It's the NFL squirming, putting out these big press releases about how bad and mean DeMaurice Smith was.
Last edited by RashanGary; 03-20-2011 at 12:54 PM.
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.
In the world of negotiating, I don't think the NFL will have a very easy time convincing a shrewd and well trained professional that it's fair. It is where it is right now. Moving forward or backward is harder to accomplish than staying the same. I think that's what the NFL is trying to do, take a step forward with their profits. The NFLPA has the job of keepign it the same or getting better on their end. A lot of money is on the line and the players want to take it to litigation where they believe they'll get their best deal. Why is everyone so mad about that?
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.
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
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?
Last edited by Patler; 03-22-2011 at 03:40 AM.
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.
</delurk>
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.
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.
</delurk>
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.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
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.
Last edited by RashanGary; 03-21-2011 at 09:43 AM.
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.
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.
My proposal does this:
Lowers the minimum cap (so the smallest teams can sit on theri cash if they like)
Keeps a relatively similar tax threshold
Has teirs of tax penalty for teams who go above
If your caps are 100m minimum, 150 tax threshold and a sliding scale from there that makes it very hard to spend drastically more than the other teams. Here's an example of what I think 32 teams would probably look like
4 teams between 100 and 110M
6 teams between 110 and 120M
8 teams between 120M and 140M
8 teams between 140M and 150M (pack would be here, spending just less than the top teams, but still could break the threshold if they thought they were on teh cusp)
4 teams between 150M and 160M
2 teams between 160M and 180M
Obviously this is just a starting point, the % and numbers will change, but this is the concept. Teams who want to skimp can skimp (but only to a degree). Teams who want to do everything in their power to win, will be able to because nobody is spending drastically more than anyone else. And teh teams with the most money can spend it, keeping the most popular teams a little more relevant.
Over the long run, I think this plan brings parity and a slight advantage to the largest markets. I think that grows the pie larger because it keeps the most fans interested more of the time, while still keeping the lower teams relevant.
As far as the players concerns, when they get more money, it's really coming at expense of the richest teams. Make those rich teams feel like their getting something for their money rather than sharing so much and the motivation to pay more goes up too.
Last edited by RashanGary; 03-22-2011 at 10:12 AM.
Baseball richest team spends 1000% more than poorest team.
My proposal the richest team spends 80% more than the poorest team.
Except for the owners who really want to skimp, everyone is in teh same spending range. If football is a 10 out of 10 in sharing money and baseball is a 1 out of 10, my proposal would be about a 3 out of 10. Essentially, the rich have a slight advantage, the poor a slight disadvantage, but everyone is competitive and more fans are interested more of the time so the total pie grows, providing more money for everyone.
You make a lot of assumptions with your model that real life has proven to the contrary about spending and competition. See baseball. Again.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote