Results 1 to 20 of 106

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Fact Rat HOFer Patler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    One foot in my grave.
    Posts
    19,708
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinHarrell View Post
    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.

  2. #2
    Lunatic Rat HOFer RashanGary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    27,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Patler View Post
    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?

  3. #3
    Stout Rat HOFer Guiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada, eh?
    Posts
    13,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Patler View Post
    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.
    --
    Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...

  4. #4
    Fact Rat HOFer Patler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    One foot in my grave.
    Posts
    19,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Guiness View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Patler; 03-22-2011 at 03:40 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •