Proposed new rules not enacted - problem for Bishop

[pbmax]

There was an obnoxious quote from some union flunkie who basically said "Hey, this is two steps forward and one step back." Thus, the union won't agree.

First of all, isn't that a net gain? Secondly, does the Union really view "progress" as taking away everything from the league? Does it not know that neither part of the equation exists without the other?

Both sides are infuriating, but the league has better PR people.

Its a negotiation. Of course one side views the other gain as their loss. The key is to allow the other side to think its getting a big win when its really getting less than it thinks.

In this case the question is who got greedy? The original story was that the NFLPA wanted a concession for agreeing. But I never heard what that concession was. The only specific is a the League request you mention about practice rules. But was that the original bone of contention or was it a counter offer?

[MadScientist]

Its a negotiation. Of course one side views the other gain as their loss. The key is to allow the other side to think its getting a big win when its really getting less than it thinks.

In this case the question is who got greedy? The original story was that the NFLPA wanted a concession for agreeing. But I never heard what that concession was. The only specific is a the League request you mention about practice rules. But was that the original bone of contention or was it a counter offer?

The rule change proposals (IR, trades) came from the owners, so I don't see how a practice change could be in a counter offer, since there has been no mention of the players asking for anything specific. Neither of these proposals are all that beneficial to the union, though they might help some players. Adding more padded practices late in the season (which seems to be the what the owners wanted, although no details have been providied) is of course a negative for players. Considering fewer practices and fewer padded practices were about all the players really got out of the last CBA, they are not going to be eager to undo some of those rules.

[Patler]

The rule change proposals (IR, trades) came from the owners, so I don't see how a practice change could be in a counter offer, since there has been no mention of the players asking for anything specific. Neither of these proposals are all that beneficial to the union, though they might help some players. Adding more padded practices late in the season (which seems to be the what the owners wanted, although no details have been providied) is of course a negative for players. Considering fewer practices and fewer padded practices were about all the players really got out of the last CBA, they are not going to be eager to undo some of those rules.

If you go back to when the owners voted on the trade deadline and IR changes, the other issue that was voted on, passed and planned to be submitted to the NFLPA for approval was the requirement for thigh pads in 2013. I remember discussion about an added padded practice or two later in the season, but I don't recall it even being voted on by the owners.