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

[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.

[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.

[Lurker64]

Major issues shall be resolved on April 6 due to litigation not negotiating. True negotiating starts after April 6.

If you think that anything is actually going to be decided on April 6, you seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Hearings for a preliminary injunction blocking a lockout *start* on April 6, to say nothing about the time it takes to reach a decision, and inevitable appeals (whichever side loses here will appeal). The actual details of Brady v. NFL won't be heard for months. A deal could get done by negotiating well before that.

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.

Could you link to the podcast of the show? Or at least the name of the show, and the date and approximate time? This is at odds with everything that he's written for the NFP.

[rbaloha1]

If you think that anything is actually going to be decided on April 6, you seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Hearings for a preliminary injunction blocking a lockout *start* on April 6, to say nothing about the time it takes to reach a decision, and inevitable appeals (whichever side loses here will appeal). The actual details of Brady v. NFL won't be heard for months. A deal could get done by negotiating well before that.



Could you link to the podcast of the show? Or at least the name of the show, and the date and approximate time? This is at odds with everything that he's written for the NFP.

Dude, you do not understand the process according to Brandt. E-mail him. Seriously -- things can not always be explained with your mathematical equations.

Arrogant owners and Show Me the Money Players can not be easily resolved with formal negotiations.

If Mr. Smith hired you as a paid consultant how would you advise him in obtaining the best deal possible for the players?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[RashanGary]

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.

[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.

[RashanGary]

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.

[Lurker64]

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.

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.

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.

[Patler]

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.

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.

[RashanGary]

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.

[RashanGary]

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?