official: union decertifies

[red]

michael silver just tweeted it

[red]

http://twitter.com/MikeSilver

[red]

i say fuck both sides at this point

owners want the players to give back a ton of money without opening the books to show that they are actually not making that much money.

but then just an hour or so ago, the owners seemed to cave in and made a proposal that slit the difference between the two sides in half. that to me seems like a pretty good offer.

the union made no counter offer, they just decertified, leading me to believe that that was their goal the whole time

now it goes to the courts and turns into more of a mess

[Patler]

It's about time!

[packers11]

Im so sick of this shit. Over 9 billion dollars they can't figure it out and come to an agreement? All the fans give all this money to the league/players and this is what we get in return? How would the nfl feel if the "fans" got together and cancelled the 400+ dollar direct.tv nfl pacakage to watch the games and all the hundreds of dollars buying collector items / not buying over priced seating /beverages at a stadium .... that 9.3 bill sure would shrink in half... the more money they make I feel like the more issues that pop up... im just ranting. All I ask for is my football for next year. We are not a 4-12 team- we have a really good chance to repeat and the true losers in this situation is the fans. Thanks for nothing unions/nfl

[red]

i use to watch quite a bit of baseball before their big strike, i've watched maybe 5 games since then

i use to be a huge nba fan, its been years since i've watched a pro basketball game

they damn well better play the whole fucking football season this year, or they can all go fuck themselves too

all these assholes need to realize they are that they are just a bunch of clowns, there to entertain us. make our lives better. yet none of them give a shit about the fans, they just follow the faceless dollar bills

[SkinBasket]

Unions are really fucking awesome.

[Zool]

If the lockout extends into the season, my interest in football will wane more than it already has the last few years. Better not fuck up a cash cow ya retards.

[Fritz]

Unions are really fucking awesome.

The owners are essentially a union. So you're right.

[Patler]

Rich owners and rich players playing tug-of-war with the goose that lays the golden eggs. Will it survive?

[red]

Rich owners and rich players playing tug-of-war with the goose that lays the golden eggs. Will it survive?

i think its gonna take a pretty decent hit. every sport that has missed time from a strike or a lockout has had major negative effects afterwards.

as packer fans we should be the ones that are the most pissed off. we don't have greedy owners, all the money that doesn't go to our players goes right back into the team.

and the major dividing issue were the teams books. well we are the one team that opened our books.

and we're the defending super bowl champs with a great foundation ready to make a run.

not only is this fucking the fans, but its really fucking the packers, and us packer fans really hard

[Old School]

People in Japan dead in an earthquake, and thosands flooded out on the east coast, and these assholes are fighting over millions. The Packers can all go act like idiots at the capitol with the anarchists. What a sad end to a Super Bowl win. They're all a bunch of union tools - the owners too.

A pox on all their houses.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

My interest in football will take a big hit if there is no football next year.

[Smidgeon]

Personally, I hope the union loses huge in litigation for not counterproposing this last deal the owners put out.

[Lurker64]

Personally, I hope the union loses huge in litigation for not counterproposing this last deal the owners put out.

From what I could glean from various media coverage, the union had a curious lack of counterproposals. They seemed to react to absolutely everything with "show us your books."

It's silly to take sides here (especially for Packer fans, since our books are open), but generally when it comes to negotiations "Willingness to compromise" wins points with me.

[red]

From what I could glean from various media coverage, the union had a curious lack of counterproposals. They seemed to react to absolutely everything with "show us your books."

yeah, thats the feeling i got too. the union got exactly what they've wanted all along

i think this is more of a strike then a lockout, or a little of both

[Jimx29]

People in Japan dead in an earthquake, and thosands flooded out on the east coast, and these assholes are fighting over millions. The Packers can all go act like idiots at the capitol with the anarchists. What a sad end to a Super Bowl win. They're all a bunch of union tools - the owners too.

A pox on all their houses.
Zactly^^

But it's Billions, not millions

[Fritz]

And they're going to take up the time of the members of the judicial system with this obnoxious wrangling. Doesn't this country have anything better to do?

[Bretsky]

unions suck

[rbaloha1]

Players have the legal argument advantage. Owners are refusing to provide the proper business documentation since they shall be exposed for improper expenses.

With no $4 billion in tv advance revenue the owners are forced to negotiate reasonably which they are not happy about.

Thank goodness for college football.

[Fritz]

unions suck

I do not agree.

[gbgary]

If the lockout extends into the season, my interest in football will wane more than it already has the last few years. Better not fuck up a cash cow ya retards.


My interest in football will take a big hit if there is no football next year.

mine won't.

[swede]

I blame the union for hiring that *&*#(@&( lawyer Demaurice Smith who is only interested in his own ends. He is the archetypical egomaniac lawyer.

I hope the players and the owners all lose the four billion dollars they could have split. They better hope to God the standoff doesn't cause the zombie trance to break that makes the public spend hundreds on jerseys and thousands on tickets and 20 bucks on a burger and a soft drink.

[MJZiggy]

I blame the union for hiring that *&*#(@&( lawyer Demaurice Smith who is only interested in his own ends. He is the archetypical egomaniac lawyer.

I hope the players and the owners all lose the four billion dollars they could have split. They better hope to God the standoff doesn't cause the zombie trance to break that makes the public spend hundreds on jerseys and thousands on tickets and 20 bucks on a burger and a soft drink.

The zombie trance broke a month or so ago when I got my Directv bill...

[rbaloha1]

I blame the union for hiring that *&*#(@&( lawyer Demaurice Smith who is only interested in his own ends. He is the archetypical egomaniac lawyer.

I hope the players and the owners all lose the four billion dollars they could have split. They better hope to God the standoff doesn't cause the zombie trance to break that makes the public spend hundreds on jerseys and thousands on tickets and 20 bucks on a burger and a soft drink.


Mr. Smith is upholding the gains Eugene Upshaw negotiated successfully. The previous deal favored the players slightly. The owners vowed revenge -- failed to renew the recently expired collective bargain agreement and attempted to secure a $4 billion "loan" from the networks.

IMO Mr. Smith is an smart articulate black union chief that is standing "toe to toe" with white slave (oops I mean NFL) owners. The owners know the players have the courts on their side. Owner rhetoric attempts to turn the fans against players which works to an extent. A deal gets worked out since the owners do not want to be exposed for silly spending.

Stand-up and applaud the players for doing what is right.

[MJZiggy]

When the union posts their "concessions" and never mentions an extra billion off the top nor do they talk about the 9 billion that they are assuming is available etc. then it's just crap they're releasing to try to sway the opinions of people they don't think know what's going on.

[mraynrand]

white slave (oops I mean NFL) owners.

The slave accommodations these days are an OUTRAGE!

http://www.celebritydetective.com/pictures/devin-hester-house-riverwoods-illinois.jpg

[Bretsky]

I blame the union for hiring that *&*#(@&( lawyer Demaurice Smith who is only interested in his own ends. He is the archetypical egomaniac lawyer.

I hope the players and the owners all lose the four billion dollars they could have split. They better hope to God the standoff doesn't cause the zombie trance to break that makes the public spend hundreds on jerseys and thousands on tickets and 20 bucks on a burger and a soft drink.


It was no mistake they chose this dude over reputable people who've played the game in Trace Armstrong and Troy Vincent....players who were well respected
They are going for blood and hired their hound

[rbaloha1]

The slave accommodations these days are an OUTRAGE!

http://www.celebritydetective.com/pictures/devin-hester-house-riverwoods-illinois.jpg

My "slave" housing have changed since Thomas Jefferson's era.

[Guiness]

From what I could glean from various media coverage, the union had a curious lack of counterproposals. They seemed to react to absolutely everything with "show us your books."

It's silly to take sides here (especially for Packer fans, since our books are open), but generally when it comes to negotiations "Willingness to compromise" wins points with me.

I agree whole heartedly on the 'willingness to compromise' but I gather that the union's position is that they were playing blind baseball. They were being told the current deal wasn't going to work, they had to give something up, but were being shown nothing to prove it. They didn't have enough information to even craft a proposal, because they didn't know the lay of the land.

IMO the owners did not prove that the split wasn't working for them. Actually, I see a lot of pointers in the other direction. I can understand the position that from the player's view, nothing had to change.

The real SNAFU is that the owner's rep is claiming he gave the union all the financial information they asked for, profit/loss for individual teams, etc. The union is claiming they haven't received what they wanted. They are apparently so far apart that they don't even know what the other is asking for :-(

[HarveyWallbangers]

Mr. Smith is upholding the gains Eugene Upshaw negotiated successfully. The previous deal favored the players slightly. The owners vowed revenge -- failed to renew the recently expired collective bargain agreement and attempted to secure a $4 billion "loan" from the networks.

IMO Mr. Smith is an smart articulate black union chief that is standing "toe to toe" with white slave (oops I mean NFL) owners. The owners know the players have the courts on their side. Owner rhetoric attempts to turn the fans against players which works to an extent. A deal gets worked out since the owners do not want to be exposed for silly spending.

Stand-up and applaud the players for doing what is right.

I tend to blame the owners, but this is just plain retarded. Didn't we leave shit like this behind when Obama was elected? This gets my retard seal of approval.

http://www.most-underrated-songs-ever.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/super-retard.jpg

[RashanGary]

I'll just repeat a couple points that I thought were good so far.

1. This sucks because the Packers are on the verge of greatness
2. I'm definitely going to follow the Badgers very closely this year and I hope they can help me move on from the Packers


Owners mean nothing to me. There could be 32 publicly owned teams like the Packers and the product would be just as good. I'd just as soon see the pie get divvied up between the players who bring us the great entertainment rather than the 32 rich old guys who could very easily be replaced by 32 Mark Murphy's who make a million per year. And probably, the product would get better without the owners. It would be nothing without the players.

[Bretsky]

Justin,

I'm not sure this is the year to go full bore on the Badgers; the just lost a very good DC and there are some questions on both sides of the line. I think they will be alright next year and the year after might be a very strong one. Good group of good attitude kids w/o much drama...........at least they won't be selling merchandise out in public :)

[red]

The real SNAFU is that the owner's rep is claiming he gave the union all the financial information they asked for, profit/loss for individual teams, etc. The union is claiming they haven't received what they wanted. They are apparently so far apart that they don't even know what the other is asking for :-(

heres the way i see this. they just gave profit or lose numbers, they didn't give the numbers on how they got there. an nfl team is just like any other business. the owner can say his team is losing money, and he can prove it. then you dig a little deeper at where all the money he brought in went. in those numbers is the compensation for employees. the team could be losing money, but these guys could be writing paychecks to themselves and their family members for very large sums of money

kind of like when a bank or other large company goes under and thousands of people lose their jobs, but the ceo gets a 20 million dollar bonus for that year

same old shit, different rich assholes trying to pull it off

oh well, the lockout is on as of midnight eastern. starting to sound like you can kiss the 2011 season goodbye

[Tarlam!]

Well, it was clear all along the NFLPA weren't going to budge. Neither were the owners. They should have started the litigation process immediately after the SB. At least I credit the owners, though, in showing something in the way of good faith. At the same time, they should have nothing to hide IMHO.

I think the players should have taken the deal that was on the table for two years for stability's sake and got a concession that negotiations for a long term agreement under the current labor talks format be ongoing during that period. I think the players blew it short term.

[HarveyWallbangers]

at least they won't be selling merchandise out in public :)

You talkin' to me?

[rbaloha1]

[QUOTE=Tarlam!;582793]Well, it was clear all along the NFLPA weren't going to budge. Neither were the owners. They should have started the litigation process immediately after the SB. At least I credit the owners, though, in showing something in the way of good faith. At the same time, they should have nothing to hide IMHO.

Dude its the owners that canceled the previous agreement. The owners are bad losers.

[channtheman]

The slave accommodations these days are an OUTRAGE!

http://www.celebritydetective.com/pictures/devin-hester-house-riverwoods-illinois.jpg

No kidding. Only ONE Tennis court and NO go kart track?

[Tarlam!]

Dude its the owners that canceled the previous agreement. The owners are bad losers.

I'm aware of the situation, but frankly, there are no winners and everybody is a loser. As I've said, I understand what the players require and why and I am suspicious about the owners' refusal to open their books. But the offer was a decent working basis to guarantee football, avoid losing fans/revenue and be a foundation for serious progressive negotiations.

[Lurker64]

Dude its the owners that canceled the previous agreement. The owners are bad losers.

Cancelling the last CBA was in no way malicious. The expired CBA included language wherein either party could decide to end it up to two years early. Invoking that clause means nothing other than "we would prefer to work out a new deal" which the owners clearly attempted to get over these past few weeks. Attempts by the league to cast the ownership's opting out of the CBA early as somehow injurious to the players or otherwise a bad thing are simply blatant attempts to court public opinion.





heres the way i see this. they just gave profit or lose numbers, they didn't give the numbers on how they got there. an nfl team is just like any other business. the owner can say his team is losing money, and he can prove it. then you dig a little deeper at where all the money he brought in went. in those numbers is the compensation for employees. the team could be losing money, but these guys could be writing paychecks to themselves and their family members for very large sums of money

Well, the reason for not opening the books is simple: it would accomplish nothing. Opening the books would give the players a bunch of things to throw back in the owners faces, which are absolutely commonplace in large companies but would seem excessive to random people on the street. The other problem is that, in the court of public opinion, all profit is indefensible. No matter how big a company you are, if you make any amount of profit that seems large to the layperson, you can get called out as greedy. The PA and the league would never be able to come to an agreement on "how much profit is enough", since for an employer no amount of profit is enough and for an employee any profit is too much.

If the league had reason to believe that disclosing their financials would actually get the union to budge, and not blow up in their faces then they likely would have done so. This fundamentally comes down to the fact that the two sides absolutely didn't trust each other (let's face it, Goodell and Smith are slimy lawyers, Owners are rich assholes, and Players are idiots), so the league simply believed that the union wouldn't budge no matter how much financial data they got.

[mraynrand]

I tend to blame the owners, but this is just plain retarded. Didn't we leave shit like this behind when Obama was elected? This gets my retard seal of approval.

http://www.most-underrated-songs-ever.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/super-retard.jpg


Harvey, I've asked nicely time and again for you not to use my picture. Isn't this a violation of the most sacred of all Ratrules? No personal information. Just use a picture of Adam Sandler instead.

[mraynrand]

Goodell and Smith are slimy lawyers, Owners are rich assholes, and Players are idiots...

Goodell is a self-important stuffed shirt, Smith is a raging sociopath, and most owners and players are rich and spoiled megalomaniacs/athletes. I'm on the side of the loyal fans, and the former players who are beat all to hell and got nothing. The rest can go F themselves.

[Patler]

Cancelling the last CBA was in no way malicious. The expired CBA included language wherein either party could decide to end it up to two years early. Invoking that clause means nothing other than "we would prefer to work out a new deal" which the owners clearly attempted to get over these past few weeks. Attempts by the league to cast the ownership's opting out of the CBA early as somehow injurious to the players or otherwise a bad thing are simply blatant attempts to court public opinion.

Well, the reason for not opening the books is simple: it would accomplish nothing. Opening the books would give the players a bunch of things to throw back in the owners faces, which are absolutely commonplace in large companies but would seem excessive to random people on the street. The other problem is that, in the court of public opinion, all profit is indefensible. No matter how big a company you are, if you make any amount of profit that seems large to the layperson, you can get called out as greedy. The PA and the league would never be able to come to an agreement on "how much profit is enough", since for an employer no amount of profit is enough and for an employee any profit is too much.

If the league had reason to believe that disclosing their financials would actually get the union to budge, and not blow up in their faces then they likely would have done so. This fundamentally comes down to the fact that the two sides absolutely didn't trust each other (let's face it, Goodell and Smith are slimy lawyers, Owners are rich assholes, and Players are idiots), so the league simply believed that the union wouldn't budge no matter how much financial data they got.

Very true. It's hard to filter fact from fiction in all the news stories, but recent things seem to point to an unreasonableness from the players:

- supposedly the owners agreed to release unaudited financial information to an independent third party accounting firm, who would then issue a report to the players about the owners claims. The players rejected it, wanting all details in front of their own biased eyes, just like the owners biased eyes. Generally, an independent third party is the way to breach gaps such as this.

- apparently on Friday the players demanded 10 years of data immediately to secure another extension for negotiations. I believe they originally asked for 5 years. Upping demands at a critical time assures that no compromise will occur.

- Hunter Hillenmeyer, who apparently has been involved in the negotiations, criticized the owners for not offering a counter proposal when the players rejected the owners first proposal. It is never wise to negotiate by yourself. A proposal from one side generally is countered by a proposal from the other side, not a second proposal from the side making the initial offer.

I think the players are right were they wanted to be all along, in Federal court.

[SkinBasket]

Stand-up and applaud the players for doing what is right.

LOL. No one is doing what is right you silly dipstick.

If what red reported about the owners offering to split the difference is true, then at least they made the only honest effort in the negotiations. Not very impressive, but better than what the union pulled, which is exactly what the owners suspected they were doing and exactly what the communist NLRB was never going to do anything about.

[gbgary]

i'm not worried much. they'll be playing on schedule. since the owners aren't getting the tv money they thought they were going to get they'll make sure it gets done in time. like jerry jones said yesterday, he didn't build that stadium to have it sit empty. he's got money troubles and he's a big voice in that room.

[pbmax]

It was no mistake they chose this dude over reputable people who've played the game in Trace Armstrong and Troy Vincent....players who were well respected
They are going for blood and hired their hound

Do you know anything about the guy other than he is a lawyer and has a relationship to a politician you don't like? He's not billing hourly. And the same reputable players you feel are represented by Armstrong and Vincent** voted for Smith after an exhaustive and long interview process that included a lot of people INCLUDING Armstrong and Vincent. And Smith was in part a compromise candidate for those who did not feel that going hardcore after the owners was a wise maneuver this time. Its unlikely he drove this option.

They are at this option not because people are incompetent or evil, but because its their point of greatest leverage.

The question is now whether the league's outside counsel has a better strategy for beating this in court than the owners did last time when they got their lunch handed to them.


** Vincent stands accused (though not charged, simply dismissed from his former Union position) of profiting personally from proprietary Union information that he reported to his private business interests. Vincent might not be exactly the stand up guy you think him to be.

And by the way: the last guy to go this route and win? Respected former player Eugene Upshaw. People both inside and outside the Union called him every name in the book for going this route. But he won true free agency.

Root for the owner's if you wish, just be honest about it.

[pbmax]

I blame the union for hiring that *&*#(@&( lawyer Demaurice Smith who is only interested in his own ends. He is the archetypical egomaniac lawyer.

I hope the players and the owners all lose the four billion dollars they could have split. They better hope to God the standoff doesn't cause the zombie trance to break that makes the public spend hundreds on jerseys and thousands on tickets and 20 bucks on a burger and a soft drink.

And how do you feel about the "lockout" specialist Bob Batterman, the NFL's Outside Legal Counsel? Since his specialty is forcing unions to capitulate (see disastrous but profitable NHL work stoppage) when confronted with a lockout they are unprepared for, do you feel the same animosity?

[pbmax]

LOL. No one is doing what is right you silly dipstick.

If what red reported about the owners offering to split the difference is true, then at least they made the only honest effort in the negotiations. Not very impressive, but better than what the union pulled, which is exactly what the owners suspected they were doing and exactly what the communist NLRB was never going to do anything about.

If I am selling you an automobile that is actually valued at $2000 and I am asking $4000 while you are offering $1800, then splitting the difference doesn't seem reasonable from the buyer's point of view.

[pbmax]

supposedly the owners agreed to release unaudited financial information to an independent third party accounting firm, who would then issue a report to the players about the owners claims. The players rejected it, wanting all details in front of their own biased eyes, just like the owners biased eyes. Generally, an independent third party is the way to breach gaps such as this.

Do you remember where you saw this? I am behind in my second job's reading, but last I saw the owners were claiming to be ready to release more information than they had ever made available to the Union and more than the clubs got reports on (from other clubs). However, the data was still profit data and did not include expense data. So claiming to hand out more info than ever before only points to the limited nature of previous disclosures.

The reason expense data is important is because owners report expenses that often belong either as profit or in another category entirely. The league had to release it complete financial picture during the last federal court proceeding and as an example, both Norman Braman and Mike Brown reported their own salaries as expenses, not profit. Brown took a double accounting dip in two different years, collecting salary as both GM and President. Each amount was recorded as expense.

[pbmax]

Well, the reason for not opening the books is simple: it would accomplish nothing. Opening the books would give the players a bunch of things to throw back in the owners faces, which are absolutely commonplace in large companies but would seem excessive to random people on the street. The other problem is that, in the court of public opinion, all profit is indefensible. No matter how big a company you are, if you make any amount of profit that seems large to the layperson, you can get called out as greedy. The PA and the league would never be able to come to an agreement on "how much profit is enough", since for an employer no amount of profit is enough and for an employee any profit is too much.

If the league had reason to believe that disclosing their financials would actually get the union to budge, and not blow up in their faces then they likely would have done so. This fundamentally comes down to the fact that the two sides absolutely didn't trust each other (let's face it, Goodell and Smith are slimy lawyers, Owners are rich assholes, and Players are idiots), so the league simply believed that the union wouldn't budge no matter how much financial data they got.

I agree with the broad point, that the financials wouldn't solve everything, but disagree that they wouldn't enable actual bargaining. The actual financials were expressly helpful in resolving the last court case and constructing the CBA in 1992.

However, with owners now facing increased expense costs from new stadiums (California right now is even more reluctant than Minnesota to build anyone a stadium with public funds) many of the costs that must be taken into account are future costs and not represented in the books yet, with the exception of the most recent stadiums (Cowboys).

There is a reason owner's would be less than willing to disclose financials that has nothing to do with players and the CBA. Owner's don't share that information with other teams, instead only sharing profit info for the purposes of revenue sharing. They would be exposing their own business and accounting practices to their ownership brethren and many don't want to do that. But they run the risk of having to expose all of the information in the discovery process anyway.

[Pugger]

One of the most financially sound franchises made a decent profit in 2009 but lost revenue because of players' salaries. You have to wonder how much revenue a team like Detroit, Cincy or Buffalo lost in 2009 because of skyrocketing player costs. Isn't this the reason why the owners wanted out of the recently expired CBA?

[pbmax]

Per PFT, the NFL's last proposal, several items of which were on the player's wish list. One thing to watch out for: Florio and others are talking about $325 million as though it was the only revenue concession here. But the players and owners had already discussed a reduction and were still $650 million apart. So to do a calculation about where they would be with the old agreement and where they would be with the new agreement, you need to know the players last offer. If say, the players were talking about taking $175 million off revenue before calculating player costs and the owners were at $825 mil, then the total additional revenue off the top before player costs get calculated would represent a $500 million concession.

And the devil is always in the details. Deferring an agree about an 18 game season might not stop it. The last agreement contemplated a 22 game season (4 preseason, 16 reg and 2 unknown) and absent language about it, that might be enforceable in the new deal. And the rookie plan, whether its the player's idea or not, is still a concession to the owners.

NFL’s summary of its final proposal to the players
Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2011, 7:51 PM EST
NFLLogo

[Editor's note: The NFL has released a summary of the final proposal it made on Friday to the NFLPA. The full text of the summary appears below.]

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry level compensation system based on the Union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury – the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by

a. Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;

b. Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and

c. Increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

[pbmax]

One of the most financially sound franchises made a decent profit in 2009 but lost revenue because of players' salaries. You have to wonder how much revenue a team like Detroit, Cincy or Buffalo lost in 2009 because of skyrocketing player costs. Isn't this the reason why the owners wanted out of the recently expired CBA?

If you are referring to the Packers, they didn't "lose" revenue. They claimed the books showed player costs were increasing faster than revenue, but that is not the same thing. And profit was down, though the dip was not as severe as the previous year when investments took a dive. And the Packers were still funding their rainy day fund, which should probably be seen as cash on hand, if not profit.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Goodell is a self-important stuffed shirt, Smith is a raging sociopath, and most owners and players are rich and spoiled megalomaniacs/athletes. I'm on the side of the loyal fans, and the former players who are beat all to hell and got nothing. The rest can go F themselves.

Word up dog.

[rbaloha1]

LOL. No one is doing what is right you silly dipstick.

If what red reported about the owners offering to split the difference is true, then at least they made the only honest effort in the negotiations. Not very impressive, but better than what the union pulled, which is exactly what the owners suspected they were doing and exactly what the communist NLRB was never going to do anything about.

Maybe if you were a player you would feel otherwise.

[rbaloha1]

If I am selling you an automobile that is actually valued at $2000 and I am asking $4000 while you are offering $1800, then splitting the difference doesn't seem reasonable from the buyer's point of view.

Good take. Splitting comes after deductions. The players want to see why the deductions are so large.

[rbaloha1]

[QUOTE=Lurker64;582807]Cancelling the last CBA was in no way malicious. The expired CBA included language wherein either party could decide to end it up to two years early. Invoking that clause means nothing other than "we would prefer to work out a new deal" which the owners clearly attempted to get over these past few weeks. Attempts by the league to cast the ownership's opting out of the CBA early as somehow injurious to the players or otherwise a bad thing are simply blatant attempts to court public opinion.

Somewhat true. It was a bad deal for the owners. The owners promised to screw the players in the next round of negotiations. The players are wiser. Manning, Brady and Brees can sue the owners with no consequences to themselves.

Herm Edwards mentioned that previous players that took the lead in previous negotiations never played in the league again. Both sides are extremely competitive. Its unlikely a settlement is close. Its just about pr at the moment. The posturing is done.

[mraynrand]

If I am selling you an automobile that is actually valued at $2000 and I am asking $4000 while you are offering $1800, then splitting the difference doesn't seem reasonable from the buyer's point of view.


Who valued it at $2000?

[pbmax]

Who valued it at $2000?

The folks at Gordie Boucher. Its worth $2000 at their push, pull or drag it in sale during Trade In Extravaganza.

For the CBA, I would guess the important numbers are profit percentage or ROI prior to 2006 CBA and after. And perhaps player cost percentage during same time. That would give you the parameters for buyer's idea of a good price and the seller's viewpoint.

[mraynrand]

The folks at Gordie Boucher. Its worth $2000 at their push, pull or drag it in sale during Trade In Extravaganza.

For the CBA, I would guess the important numbers are profit percentage or ROI prior to 2006 CBA and after. And perhaps player cost percentage during same time. That would give you the parameters for buyer's idea of a good price and the seller's viewpoint.


Wouldn't that third party - the one they were going to let look at the books - have helped come up with this number? Like having used car buyer and Ernie Von Schledorn agree to let some dude from Edmunds.com figure out a fair market price for the '96 delta 88.

[rbaloha1]

Wouldn't that third party - the one they were going to let look at the books - have helped come up with this number? Like having used car buyer and Ernie Von Schledorn agree to let some dude from Edmunds.com figure out a fair market price for the '96 delta 88.

The third party is the courts. The player's trump card is in play -- anti trust. The owners should provide a better offer that stops the litigation and satisfies the player's quest not to look at the true financials.

Agree with Mr. Smith that the league is not hurting given the record ratings and popularity. Dr. Martin Luther King would be proud.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Wouldn't that third party - the one they were going to let look at the books - have helped come up with this number? Like having used car buyer and Ernie Von Schledorn agree to let some dude from Edmunds.com figure out a fair market price for the '96 delta 88.

Who do you know wants to buy a car? Ernie Von Schleeeeeedorrrrnnnn... main street in Menomonee Fallllllsss.

[MJZiggy]

Who do you know wants to buy a car? Ernie Von Schleeeeeedorrrrnnnn... main street in Menomonee Fallllllsss.

Still?

Oh and PB,:bclap: Thanks for the insight.

[packerbacker1234]

Well I just read the email for Goodell he sent out yesterday. It appears the owners/nfl has put an even newer offer on the table that almost concedes 100% to the original PU's demands. The problem is even though they were under 200 million doallars apart, and the new deal custs that in half, the fact remains that the PU does not appear to want to budge until full financials are released. While the PU dissolved and no longer represents the players, it was mostly a play to allow the palyers to sue and force the NFL to not allow a lockout to occur. The players union still exists in some respect, and if agreed upon could rerepresent the palyers again in the future.

My initial reaction to the pu dissolving was "what can the palyers themselves do? They work for the NFL, the NFL doesn't work for them". They can sue for anti-trust and to prevent lockouts, but without the union they lose power in a CBA don't they? I say this because NFL owns them, not the other way around. This means the NFL can do whatever they want.

I do appreciate teh fact the NFL is offering a bandaid agreement for two years which will at least give more time to sort out the remaining money issues while not allowing the NFL to stop. It doesn't fix the big issues but it at least makes the immediate future all fine, should the palyers agree.

[mraynrand]

The third party is the courts. The player's trump card is in play -- anti trust. The owners should provide a better offer that stops the litigation and satisfies the player's quest not to look at the true financials. .

Didn't they do that with the offer to have a third party look at the books? I'm not up to speed on this issue, but that's what I heard. Was that a legit offer?

[Lurker64]

The owners should provide a better offer that stops the litigation and satisfies the player's quest not to look at the true financials.

Not possible. You cannot collectively bargain with a trade association, only a union. There is no players union right now, so there's nobody to provide a better offer to.

The die is cast, either the NFLPA effectively blocks a lockout or the decertification is rules a sham (it is). Either way, one side or the other will acquire a ton of leverage so all of the deals, offers, and demands made up until yesterday are irrelevant. If the NFL ends up winning with their sham argument, their opening bid to the NFLPA will be much less generous than the last offer they gave.

[rbaloha1]

Not possible. You cannot collectively bargain with a trade association, only a union. There is no players union right now, so there's nobody to provide a better offer to.

The die is cast, either the NFLPA effectively blocks a lockout or the decertification is rules a sham (it is). Either way, one side or the other will acquire a ton of leverage so all of the deals, offers, and demands made up until yesterday are irrelevant. If the NFL ends up winning with their sham argument, their opening bid to the NFLPA will be much less generous than the last offer they gave.

There is no sham. The CBA is moot. The owners should comply with opening their books to players (not completely though). Owners need to avoid courts since it may be discovered they are underreporting revenue. Very likely since Forbes values all franchises at least $1 billion. The feds could also step-in if they are found to be underreporting. Anti trust is another matter.

IMO the players hold the leverage since the owners do not have the $4 billion piggy bank.

[Bretsky]

Do you know anything about the guy other than he is a lawyer and has a relationship to a politician you don't like? He's not billing hourly. And the same reputable players you feel are represented by Armstrong and Vincent** voted for Smith after an exhaustive and long interview process that included a lot of people INCLUDING Armstrong and Vincent. And Smith was in part a compromise candidate for those who did not feel that going hardcore after the owners was a wise maneuver this time. Its unlikely he drove this option.

They are at this option not because people are incompetent or evil, but because its their point of greatest leverage.

The question is now whether the league's outside counsel has a better strategy for beating this in court than the owners did last time when they got their lunch handed to them.


** Vincent stands accused (though not charged, simply dismissed from his former Union position) of profiting personally from proprietary Union information that he reported to his private business interests. Vincent might not be exactly the stand up guy you think him to be.

And by the way: the last guy to go this route and win? Respected former player Eugene Upshaw. People both inside and outside the Union called him every name in the book for going this route. But he won true free agency.

Root for the owner's if you wish, just be honest about it.

yes, I've read about his egotistical dousche plenty; I could care less who he's friends with. I stand by my belief that the players want to make this ugly, they do not want to bargain in good faith right now, and they want to inflect pain on the owners...partiall for feeling slighted in the past........they didn't want one of their own anymore for a reason .

[Bretsky]

Very true. It's hard to filter fact from fiction in all the news stories, but recent things seem to point to an unreasonableness from the players:

- supposedly the owners agreed to release unaudited financial information to an independent third party accounting firm, who would then issue a report to the players about the owners claims. The players rejected it, wanting all details in front of their own biased eyes, just like the owners biased eyes. Generally, an independent third party is the way to breach gaps such as this.

- apparently on Friday the players demanded 10 years of data immediately to secure another extension for negotiations. I believe they originally asked for 5 years. Upping demands at a critical time assures that no compromise will occur.

- Hunter Hillenmeyer, who apparently has been involved in the negotiations, criticized the owners for not offering a counter proposal when the players rejected the owners first proposal. It is never wise to negotiate by yourself. A proposal from one side generally is countered by a proposal from the other side, not a second proposal from the side making the initial offer.

I think the players are right were they wanted to be all along, in Federal court.


BOOM
WINNER

[rbaloha1]

BOOM
WINNER

I have lava land available if you want it. The arrogant owners only changed when Judge Doty ruled against the owner's $4 billion slush fund. Judge Doty is player friendly having ruled on the players side in 1989, the Reggie White free agency and the illegal $4 billion.

The owners better find a solution. IMO leaving your fate with Judge Doty is unwise.

[Bretsky]

I have lava land available if you want it. The arrogant owners only changed when Judge Doty ruled against the owner's $4 billion slush fund. Judge Doty is player friendly having ruled on the players side in 1989, the Reggie White free agency and the illegal $4 billion.

The owners better find a solution. IMO leaving your fate with Judge Doty is unwise.


agree with you...........I was just stating Patler's point of the players being exactly where they wanted to be was a winner

[rbaloha1]

agree with you...........I was just stating Patler's point of the players being exactly where they wanted to be was a winner

Thank goodness. The owners are asking players to revert to 2007 salary cap numbers and asking office personnel to take pay cuts. Ridiculous when you are growing revenue.

The owners are still freaked-out by not having that $4 billion. Imagine if Judge Doty ruled against the players.

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/117857134.html

[pbmax]

yes, I've read about his egotistical dousche plenty; I could care less who he's friends with. I stand by my belief that the players want to make this ugly, they do not want to bargain in good faith right now, and they want to inflect pain on the owners...partiall for feeling slighted in the past........they didn't want one of their own anymore for a reason .

Link about the egotistical douche? One who is more egotistical and douchetastic than the other wildly successful people in the room?

[pbmax]

Wouldn't that third party - the one they were going to let look at the books - have helped come up with this number? Like having used car buyer and Ernie Von Schledorn agree to let some dude from Edmunds.com figure out a fair market price for the '96 delta 88.

It certainly could be. However, despite Patler's post to the contrary, I have found nothing at all today that the Owner's stance on sharing financial data during the last two days.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-disrespectedunion031111

Silver does confirm the request for 10 years of audited financial data, but there is no mention that this was a change from a previous request for five years (in fact the inference is that the request had not changed and the owners had not changed their opposition). As for a third party, I doubt either side wants to trust a party that the other side is paying. So that would eventually mean 2 sets of auditors see the info (the owners accountants and the firm the players had contacted). However, the players would not need to know WHICH teams possessed which set of data, so some confidentiality could have been arranged, Team A, Team B, ....

So I am not so sure the owners were sharing anything more substantial than the statement on profits they have already shared. One source (via PFT) had the totality of that information consisting of one page of numbers, two for each team. Presumable, either the last two years or one number from prior to 2006 and one after.

I missed much of Thursday and all of Friday NFL stuff, so I would like to see if anyone has a report that I am missing.

My reading of the tea leaves is that the league thinks the players are caught in a legal paradox, one provision of the CBA limited the ability of the Union to decertify for six months IF they didn't decertify before the CBA expired. Another provision limited the owner's ability to claim that decertification was a sham only if decertification occurred AFTER the CBA expired. The players picked the former language to adhere to and thus the owner's might have retained the ability to claim the NFLPA is still a Union.

[RashanGary]

(let's face it, Goodell and Smith are slimy lawyers, Owners are rich assholes, and Players are idiots), so the league simply believed that the union wouldn't budge no matter how much financial data they got.

I like this line and then I don't like the finish. Maybe the owners knew if the NFLPA knew the truth, it would only get worse.

[Bretsky]

Link about the egotistical douche? One who is more egotistical and douchetastic than the other wildly successful people in the room?


I said I've read about that egotistical dousche

Egotystical dousche would mean an opinion based off of my reading, and I don't value the debate of whether he's an egotystical dousche or not enough to go hunting for past readings

Plus, we probably don't have any wildly successful people here :)

[RashanGary]

Bretsky,

The owners are giving up partial financial information. It appears since they signed the last CBA they knew this day was coming. There is nothing stopping them from making large purchases that might make profit look smaller. I'm no NFL big wig, but it common sense says partial information can have major holes. That information can look far different (worse if the owners want it to) than it actually is. It's like settlers negotiating with drunk Native Americans over land. One side knows what's going on and the other is clueless. Rather than looking at it like the players wanted to make this ugly, consider the possibility that the owners want to fleece the players and the NFLPA would rather go to court than get ripped off.

So yeah, the owners keep asking the players to take a pay cut. The players are certainly open to it. Just show them why. The owners refuse to. Instead they tried to get a guaranteed TV deal and then break them down.

And keep in mind, the highest paid players are getting paid a lot of money. But the players are splitting their half 1700 ways. The owners are splitting theirs 32 ways. This is billlionaires (who do nothing for us that Mark Murphy or his equivalent couldn't do for a million) fighting with millionaires who we actually pay to see. I'm with the players here.

[RashanGary]

To all of those who think the players are more at fault than the owners, answer this question:

Do you think it's possible that the information the owners provided to the players does not give the players enough information to conduct a good, educated negotiation?

[Guiness]

Owners mean nothing to me. There could be 32 publicly owned teams like the Packers and the product would be just as good. I'd just as soon see the pie get divvied up between the players who bring us the great entertainment rather than the 32 rich old guys who could very easily be replaced by 32 Mark Murphy's who make a million per year. And probably, the product would get better without the owners. It would be nothing without the players.

+1

That's very well put, JH.

[jmbarnes101]

No. The NFLPA is using that as an excuse when all along they knew exactly where they wanted to be... in front of a largely pro-employee part-time judge who can pass whatever stand he wants based on whatever testimony he deems relevant. The owners are far from blameless but were at least negotiating in good faith.

Ask David Stern about sharing financial data with the players. The NBA capitulated to their requests and not only did it not help but it made it worse. A vast majority of teams in the NBA are barely treading water due to the last deal and the NBA needs to be fixed or become the NHL... an afterthought.

Players need to stop thinking they are above the team. For some reason they think they are the owners when they aren't even the only employees.

Rant on unions: I was cut from my teaching job last June and still unable to find a job to replace that one. Fat lot of good my union did for me despite paying nearly $100 a month in union dues. Unions are a sham with their own priorities and don't care about individuals. The players feel entitled for some reason, which I can't stand, and the sham that is the non-existant NFLPA can kiss my big fat hairy butt.

[Guiness]

heres the way i see this. they just gave profit or lose numbers, they didn't give the numbers on how they got there. an nfl team is just like any other business. the owner can say his team is losing money, and he can prove it. then you dig a little deeper at where all the money he brought in went. in those numbers is the compensation for employees. the team could be losing money, but these guys could be writing paychecks to themselves and their family members for very large sums of money

kind of like when a bank or other large company goes under and thousands of people lose their jobs, but the ceo gets a 20 million dollar bonus for that year

same old shit, different rich assholes trying to pull it off

oh well, the lockout is on as of midnight eastern. starting to sound like you can kiss the 2011 season goodbye

That's exactly it Red.

I read an article about the '82 strike, and it said the books were audited then...and the improprieties that were found were, well, probably not surprising, but pretty bad. One of the owners (Redskins, I think) had paid himself a $6million salary, and not counted it as profit. Each team in the NFL had contributed $500k towards supporting the WLAF, and deemed it an expense.

The article went on to say that the NFL got away with it that time, because the information wasn't all that widely disseminated, but if that happened now, every little bit of info would be plastered across the internet, and everyone would know all the dirty laundry. And the NFL can't afford that. And the NFLPA is leakier than my grand-dad's rowboat, so there's no chance of confidentiality.

Wish I could remember where I read that. If anyone else has seen it, I'd like a link.

[RashanGary]

I read an article about the '82 strike, and it said the books were audited then...and the improprieties that were found were, well, probably not surprising, but pretty bad. One of the owners (Redskins, I think) had paid himself a $6million salary, and not counted it as profit. Each team in the NFL had contributed $500k towards supporting the WLAF, and deemed it an expense.


Exactly, there can be a hundred and one little things like this in each teams dirty books. Final numbers can be skewed and owners will do that if it puts another billion dollars in their wallets. If the owners really need the players to take a pay cut, show them why. They won't because there is no reason.


Owners would love it if employees (skilled and non skilled alike) would just take what they wanted to pay them. Problem is, people get together now-a-days and they collectively don't go to work if they're getting ripped off. Look at countries with little or no labor laws, workers rights or unions. They make things cheaper and they sell things to the benefit of the country or owner, but no benefit to the people other than having a bad job with bad pay so they can barely survive. That's what owners would do if they could. Good for the players for standing up. They're all making 100x less than the owner anyway. The Packers prove, there is no need for an owner at all. They're just there to get rich off their workers.

[channtheman]

To all of those who think the players are more at fault than the owners, answer this question:

Do you think it's possible that the information the owners provided to the players does not give the players enough information to conduct a good, educated negotiation?

This. I was talking to my dad about this. How can the players union possibly counter offer the owners if they don't even have information on the subject. You can use the car analogy here again. Some guy is selling me a car I know nothing about and wants 8000 and tells me it's a good deal. Do I blindly say yes? How do I know how low to go with my counter offer? Point is, the players union simply didn't have enough information here.

[Tarlam!]

The Packers prove, there is no need for an owner at all. They're just there to get rich off their workers.

I couldn't disagree more with the Packers reference. The Packers are an institution like no other. Apart from maybe the Cowboys, how many other teams could ask their fans to shell out money for shares that give them no voting rights or profits? How many teams have fans that would stand by their teams the way the Packers' fans stood by them during the dark late 70's - early 90's? I seriously doubt even 'boys fans would go through that.

The Packers got lucky with Harlan. Just imagine they didn't. And even Harlan's hand-picked, personally trained successor is not named Mark Murphy. No way can the Packers or their fans be used as a cookie cutter for the rest of the league.

Which brings me to your second point that I have snipped; The Great American Dream, as I understand it, is that all men and women are born equal and can become whatever they want if only they work hard enough. Your great country is full of rags-to-riches lore and, as a result, is the envy of the free world and probably most in the non-free world, too. I do not get it when the right to multiply money becomes a moral crime. You state these owners are there to get rich off of their workers. I've got news for you: EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYER IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS, TOO!

BTW, the owners are already rich as it is. 31 owners could turn around tomorrow and add close to a billion in liquidity within a coupla months on top of that. To quote Godon Gecco "Greed is GOOD!" It is the owners' greed starting nearly 100 years ago that formed the product we fans love so much today. It was their capital at risk. They provided post college ball. Or, are you about to tell me you'd prefer the quality of the college game over the NFL product?

The fans of 31 other teams are fickle. They turn on their teams when the losses mount. They stop going to games, stop buying merchandise, clubs start suffering revenue losses. Players don't have that risk. They risk their health and could be cut and they should be compensated fairly for that. They should have lifelong health care, pension funds. But, nobody forces them to play the game. 99.9% coming into the NFL could use the degree they earned at college to go be whatever it is they want to be other than a football player.

[Tarlam!]

You can use the car analogy here again. Some guy is selling me a car I know nothing about and wants 8000 and tells me it's a good deal. Do I blindly say yes? How do I know how low to go with my counter offer? Point is, the players union simply didn't have enough information here.

When I was at college, my marketing professor had a fantastic role play excercise using an old ford as the object of a sale. The seller was sent out of the room with details of the car - all except one: The car was a collectors item and worth 50 K. They buyer and the class had all the info. So, the role play began and the car was sold for 3K.

[SkinBasket]

If I am selling you an automobile that is actually valued at $2000 and I am asking $4000 while you are offering $1800, then splitting the difference doesn't seem reasonable from the buyer's point of view.

Except value is a subjective variable. And the players don't want the "car." They need the "car."

[pbmax]

Very true. It's hard to filter fact from fiction in all the news stories, but recent things seem to point to an unreasonableness from the players:
snip
- supposedly the owners agreed to release unaudited financial information to an independent third party accounting firm, who would then issue a report to the players about the owners claims. The players rejected it, wanting all details in front of their own biased eyes, just like the owners biased eyes. Generally, an independent third party is the way to breach gaps such as this.

- apparently on Friday the players demanded 10 years of data immediately to secure another extension for negotiations. I believe they originally asked for 5 years. Upping demands at a critical time assures that no compromise will occur.snip

I did find this, which dates the request for the type of data the players have been asking for to May, 2009.


But there’s another side to the story. The union, we’re told, believes it consistently has been asking for much more than what the NFL is offering. In a May 18, 2009 letter from NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, a copy of which PFT has obtained, Smith requests “audited financial statements concerning the operations of the 32 clubs and the league.”

Attached to the letter is a list of specific information that Smith requested: total operating income, total operating expenses (including player costs, team expenses, sales and marketing expenses, operations/maintenance expenses, salaries/payments to owners, other general and administrative expenses), profit from operations, other income/expenses, income before provision for income taxes, provision for income taxes, net income, cash and investment assets, dividends and other distributions to owners and their families, financial statement notes (including descriptions of transactions with owners and their families and related entities).

In the PFT piece, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/09/league-union-dispute-the-contents-of-the-players-past-demands/, the owner's source spins without mentioning the letter. They say that the players have been talking about profitability (and that Smith has been quoted in public statements) talking about profitability and that is the data they are willing to share. That would be a single piece of paper (if an unsourced report is to be believed) with two numbers on it for each team.

The public (and probably, I think, private statements) however, seem to be merely shorthand for the financial condition of the clubs. That is, are they profiting similarly as they were prior to 2006. I don't think the League is interested in sharing data beyond that.

[pbmax]

Except value is a subjective variable. And the players don't want the "car." They need the "car."

Well, that is a part of any negotiation. Price elasticity, needs and wants. But each side still places a value on the item before entering negotiations. This CBA is tougher because there are fewer comparables than say in buying a home or a car.

[pbmax]

According to the Denver Broncos, the information so far was solely about profitabilty and the NFL agreed to have the numbers verified by a third party. In the Broncos case, they were willing to show more, but aren't sure the NFL wants to do so.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/broncos-are-willing-to-open-their-books/


Ellis also complained about the union’s failure to even eyeball profitability data that the league had offered.

“We offered to show the union league-wide and club profitability data,” Ellis said. “Not only that it can be verified by a mutually agreed upon third-party auditor. This is the type of information we don’t share with each other. In other words, we aren’t allowed to see how other teams are doing specifically in terms of revenues and expenses. Everything is very formalized in terms of information we get from other clubs. Now the union didn’t even want to look at it.”

The question remains, what access would the third party auditor have to the basis numbers that led to the profitability number? Otherwise, they are simply verifying that one column of numbers does indeed match another.

[ThunderDan]

heres the way i see this. they just gave profit or lose numbers, they didn't give the numbers on how they got there. an nfl team is just like any other business. the owner can say his team is losing money, and he can prove it. then you dig a little deeper at where all the money he brought in went. in those numbers is the compensation for employees. the team could be losing money, but these guys could be writing paychecks to themselves and their family members for very large sums of money

kind of like when a bank or other large company goes under and thousands of people lose their jobs, but the ceo gets a 20 million dollar bonus for that year

same old shit, different rich assholes trying to pull it off

oh well, the lockout is on as of midnight eastern. starting to sound like you can kiss the 2011 season goodbye

I had a client once that was a regional retailer. In his tv and radio commercial he said he would give away 10% of his profits to charity.

What he never "told" the people shopping at his store was that he took a $500,000 W-2 and paid his wife $65,000 before getting to the bottom line.

He shows a $100,000 profit and gives $10,000 to charity (which is extremely generous). Before owners comp his profit is $665,000 and the contribution should be $66,500.

That $100,000 to $650,000 disparity is what the NFLPA is worried about.

Also on the newspaper link Murphy says they were only $20,000,000 apart per team in their positions. Well $20M for 32 teams is $640M which is almost the $1B the owners were asking for.

[pbmax]

Yes, Murphy's statement was terrible fluff. When I can deconstruct it on the fly while reading, you haven't spent enough time spinning.

The Players need some help too. And Florio is posting so often at PFT, he keeps retracing his steps over the financial ground and confusing himself. But the players ultimately are not helping by continually referring to "profitability" as a general business condition and failing to mention they want to audit the numbers behind the figure.


“We were more than willing to agree to confidentiality in that,” Kendall said regarding the possibility of financial disclosure. “The results could have been blinded so we didn’t know which teams were declining in profitability.”
In other words, the players apparently would be willing to consider team-by-team profitability information without the teams being identified.
The good news? NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith’s public demand for audited financial statements apparently was, as it appeared to be, grandstanding. If/when the negotiations resume, hopefully the two sides will find a middle ground as to the issue of financial transparency, so that they then can find a middle ground as to the challenge of figuring out how to share more than $9 billion per year.

That quote is of a piece of the whole confused debate right there and Florio flubs it, despite the evidence on his own site. It ranks right up there with his confusion from the 2009/10 CBA proposal when he could fathom the difference between player salary as reduction is business expense (compared to overall revenue) and the reduction represented in a paycheck (what folks would typically call a paycut).

Kendall is clearly looking for audited financial statements to back up, or refute, current claims about profitability. He is willing to concede confidentiality, seems open to it. He is not interested in profit numbers alone.

[pbmax]

I had a client once that was a regional retailer. In his tv and radio commercial he said he would give away 10% of his profits to charity.

What he never "told" the people shopping at his store was that he took a $500,000 W-2 and paid his wife $65,000 before getting to the bottom line.

He shows a $100,000 profit and gives $10,000 to charity (which is extremely generous). Before owners comp his profit is $665,000 and the contribution should be $66,500.

That $100,000 to $650,000 disparity is what the NFLPA is worried about.

Also on the newspaper link Murphy says they were only $20,000,000 apart per team in their positions. Well $20M for 32 teams is $640M which is almost the $1B the owners were asking for.

Were you still living in the same area you do now? Because I will now spend all day trying to remember who this was.

[pbmax]

No. The NFLPA is using that as an excuse when all along they knew exactly where they wanted to be... in front of a largely pro-employee part-time judge who can pass whatever stand he wants based on whatever testimony he deems relevant. The owners are far from blameless but were at least negotiating in good faith.

Ask David Stern about sharing financial data with the players. The NBA capitulated to their requests and not only did it not help but it made it worse. A vast majority of teams in the NBA are barely treading water due to the last deal and the NBA needs to be fixed or become the NHL... an afterthought.

Players need to stop thinking they are above the team. For some reason they think they are the owners when they aren't even the only employees.

Rant on unions: I was cut from my teaching job last June and still unable to find a job to replace that one. Fat lot of good my union did for me despite paying nearly $100 a month in union dues. Unions are a sham with their own priorities and don't care about individuals. The players feel entitled for some reason, which I can't stand, and the sham that is the non-existant NFLPA can kiss my big fat hairy butt.

Sorry about the job loss. However, it might salve your troubled, ranting heart to know the case has currently been assigned to Federal Judge Patrick Schiltz. Hopefully the part-time thing doesn't trouble you too much in his case.


UPDATE: Will Brinson of CBSSports.com tells us that the case already has been reassigned to Judge Patrick J. Schiltz. Nominated for the bench by George W. Bush in 2005, Judge Schiltz served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Though we currently don’t know anything about Judge Schiltz’s track record of rulings, he’s likely not a liberal, which likely plays into the league’s hands.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/initial-judge-steps-aside-from-brady-case/

[pbmax]

More on financial information offered by owners in an interview with Art Rooney II. But like all the rest, very short on details of what was offered (or if the level of detail offered changed from earlier in the week) except for the base word "audit" and the phrases "3rd party" and "what they wanted". Deep in my cynical heart, this reads like spin.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/art-rooney-assails-unions-tactic-expects-initial-hearing-this-week/


“That was one of the strange things in the negotiations, because the previous week when that subject came up, we said — after a long time of not being willing to provide anything and really feeling like it was one of those things that wasn’t going to lead to anything — then we felt like, OK, maybe if we agree to give them something and try to provide them some insight into what has happened to the teams, maybe that would lead to a breakthrough,” Rooney said. “So we offered to provide them some financial information through an auditor, we offered to go through a third party and have a third party look at the information.

“It was a very strange reaction. They didn’t take the information, after asking for it. They said it wasn’t good enough. I don’t even know how you can make that judgment without accepting what was offered. Certainly we would not have been surprised if they came back after they had seen it and had questions. But they never even looked at it. To me, that was a little bit of a tip-off as to where they were really headed with this thing.”

While Art II could be saying they agreed to the players original request (audited financial records), he could also still be referring to the already released information on profitability. But without knowing the level of detail behind profit numbers, its impossible to determine whether those numbers are accurate.

But I will say this: the League is winning the PR war on this, because everyone is writing like the owners offered to show everything to the auditor when that has not been established positively yet.

[RashanGary]

But I will say this: the League is winning the PR war on this, because everyone is writing like the owners offered to show everything to the auditor when that has not been established positively yet.

They absolutely are. They're telling the players to bend over to take one for the team, not explaining why and then throwing them under the bus for not taking one on the chin for the shield.

Just show them why, if it's grim, the players will agree. Sinking the ship does nothing for anyone. If the owners really are sinking and the players need to take a pay cut, show them so common sense can prevail. By not showing, it says everything.

[Lurker64]

Well, I think actually phrasing what the league is proposing as a "cut" or "the players writing a check to the owners" is simply buying into the rhetoric of the PA. Unlike, say, the NHL lockout where the owners actually won a reduction in all current contracts (so guys actually did have to give money back) the NFL owners are simply asking that the formula by which the salary cap is determined (which is how the players part of the pie is actually allocated) does not increase as fast on a year-to-year basis as it has in the past.

[SkinBasket]

Sinking the ship does nothing for anyone.

And yet... that's exactly what the union is trying to do.

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/7/767/5JSZ000Z/posters/che-guevara.jpg

[Lurker64]

Well, I think actually phrasing what the league is proposing as a "cut" or "the players writing a check to the owners" is simply buying into the rhetoric of the PA. Unlike, say, the NHL lockout where the owners actually won a reduction in all current contracts (so guys actually did have to give money back) the NFL owners are simply asking that the formula by which the salary cap is determined (which is how the players part of the pie is actually allocated) does not increase as fast on a year-to-year basis as it has in the past.

Specifically, the way the old system worked is "League takes $1,000,000,000 off the top, then players receive 59.6% of the remaining revenue which specifically manifests in the formula used to calculate the salary cap (and salary floor). There's no stone tablets handed down to Moses that says this is the way that things absolutely need to be. Specifically, last year, as there was no cap and teams were generally responsible with their money, players got significantly less than .596*(total revenue - $1b). This happened, and somehow the world did not end, nor did any NFL players go on the dole or go hungry.

So a potential system where the players make .58*(total revenue -$1b) or .596*(total revenue -$1.3b) wouldn't cause the world to end. Nor are the owners actually asking anybody to write a check, they're just looking to change the formula by which the salary cap and the floor are calculated. "Changing the formula" isn't really a ridiculous request, nor is it in any way worthy of the rancor with which the NFLPA approached it. I heard on ESPN once a former NFL player who argued that the players should never, ever, ever reduce the roughly 60% figure that they were able to win under Upshaw. Why? Did flaming letters in the sky appear and dictate that "If NFL players receive less than 60% of total revenue minus offsets that is an offense unto THE LORD"? Since if they did, I must have missed that.

I think that the NFL's response from the beginning of "show us your books" to any request involving changing the formula was the wrong one. A "If you want to get, you have to give back... so what will you give us if we agree to what you want?" approach would have been much more conducive to actually getting a deal.

[gbgary]

Specifically, the way the old system worked is "League takes $1,000,000 off the top, ...



i think that's supposed to be a billion dollars. no?

[Lurker64]

i think that's supposed to be a billion dollars. no?

Thank you, fixed now.

[RashanGary]

Specifically, the way the old system worked is "League takes $1,000,000,000 off the top, then players receive 59.6% of the remaining revenue which specifically manifests in the formula used to calculate the salary cap (and salary floor). There's no stone tablets handed down to Moses that says this is the way that things absolutely need to be. Specifically, last year, as there was no cap and teams were generally responsible with their money, players got significantly less than .596*(total revenue - $1b). This happened, and somehow the world did not end, nor did any NFL players go on the dole or go hungry.

So a potential system where the players make .58*(total revenue -$1b) or .596*(total revenue -$1.3b) wouldn't cause the world to end. Nor are the owners actually asking anybody to write a check, they're just looking to change the formula by which the salary cap and the floor are calculated. "Changing the formula" isn't really a ridiculous request, nor is it in any way worthy of the rancor with which the NFLPA approached it. I heard on ESPN once a former NFL player who argued that the players should never, ever, ever reduce the roughly 60% figure that they were able to win under Upshaw. Why? Did flaming letters in the sky appear and dictate that "If NFL players receive less than 60% of total revenue minus offsets that is an offense unto THE LORD"? Since if they did, I must have missed that.

I think that the NFL's response from the beginning of "show us your books" to any request involving changing the formula was the wrong one. A "If you want to get, you have to give back... so what will you give us if we agree to what you want?" approach would have been much more conducive to actually getting a deal.

Changing the amount the owners take directly changes the amount the players receive. Owners get more, players get less. It's absolutely not any more complicated than that. The owners are asking to change that number. They're saying they can't afford to pay the players. The players want to see if that is the truth. The owners refuse to show.

The last time the books were opened an agreement was made that would allow the owners to make great profits and also allow the players to make great livings for themselves. If something has changed since the last time they opened the books, open them again. If they won't, the players can't just trust good old Jerry Jones and Dan Snider to be telling the gods honest truth. They'd be idiots to just say, "OK guys, we don't need as much money. You do. We'll happily sign this lesser deal because you said so."

Asking to verify before they sign is the obvious thing to do. Any one of us could figure that out. Where this thing blew up is when the owners refused to show they're alleged dwinding profits. That screams dishonesty.

[pbmax]

Specifically, the way the old system worked is "League takes $1,000,000,000 off the top, then players receive 59.6% of the remaining revenue which specifically manifests in the formula used to calculate the salary cap (and salary floor). There's no stone tablets handed down to Moses that says this is the way that things absolutely need to be. Specifically, last year, as there was no cap and teams were generally responsible with their money, players got significantly less than .596*(total revenue - $1b). This happened, and somehow the world did not end, nor did any NFL players go on the dole or go hungry.

So a potential system where the players make .58*(total revenue -$1b) or .596*(total revenue -$1.3b) wouldn't cause the world to end. Nor are the owners actually asking anybody to write a check, they're just looking to change the formula by which the salary cap and the floor are calculated. "Changing the formula" isn't really a ridiculous request, nor is it in any way worthy of the rancor with which the NFLPA approached it. I heard on ESPN once a former NFL player who argued that the players should never, ever, ever reduce the roughly 60% figure that they were able to win under Upshaw. Why? Did flaming letters in the sky appear and dictate that "If NFL players receive less than 60% of total revenue minus offsets that is an offense unto THE LORD"? Since if they did, I must have missed that.

I think that the NFL's response from the beginning of "show us your books" to any request involving changing the formula was the wrong one. A "If you want to get, you have to give back... so what will you give us if we agree to what you want?" approach would have been much more conducive to actually getting a deal.

Your last line is the rub. If the concessions the league offered in their press release (which by the way, as a concession, listed a Rookie Wage Scale - a financial savings for the league - truly up is down) are not worth the half billion* dollar payroll reduction, then what are they to do?

Almost by definition, the league has described itself in financial peril. First it was the economy and interest rates, then stadium costs and reinvestment in the game. If they are truly in desperate straits, how much can they afford to compromise financially?

*estimate

For the sake of sanity, I wish reports would refer to all payroll considerations in terms of actual total revenues. Because then you are comparing actual dollars year to year. The Cap percentage is calculated off a non-standard number, one that changed significantly in 2006. The players have been hovering between 50 and 51.5% since 2002 **. Interestingly, that number stayed pretty consistent despite the changes in 2006. One of the players last offers was to drop between 49 and 51% dependent on looking at the books. I wonder what the league's compromise would have left them at?

** http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/10/report-cba-talks-broke-down-after-union-proposed-50-50-split/

[pbmax]

This is one of the reasons to read Florio. It seems as if the League and the Players were discussing an entirely different approach to calculating the cap that they termed "pegging the cap". Innuendo aside, they were trying to eliminate the necessity of using the owner's numbers to calculate a CBA and agreeing to a figure year to year. Two problems emerged. They were $20 million apart per team in 2011 (cap number of $131 vs $151). And when the owners moved to $141 million, they removed a possible compromise that would have increased that amount by a certain percentage of the league out performed its revenue projection.

While I understand the desire by the Players not to rely on the Owner's numbers, this seems even more convoluted and open to either manipulation or misunderstanding. And in the end the negotiated cap number still relies on projections based in part on the owners numbers. And the outperforming clause is entirely dependent on those figures.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/

[pbmax]

Two posts after hoping we could forget cap numbers in this discussion, I must ask. Does anyone remember what the cap number for teams was in 2009?

[bobblehead]

From what I could glean from various media coverage, the union had a curious lack of counterproposals. They seemed to react to absolutely everything with "show us your books."

It's silly to take sides here (especially for Packer fans, since our books are open), but generally when it comes to negotiations "Willingness to compromise" wins points with me.

Not that I am one to take a unions side, but is asking to know how much the owners are making off of your VERY specific skill set so out of line? I mean, the owners have a right to play with scabs after all, but they want the best. If the owners have the will power they can break this union. The NFL is ONE corporation and that is the way they should organize so they don't lose any more collusion lawsuits. They can then set the rules of play within their organization as they see fit for the future. The players can feel free to form their own leagues if they want. Jerry Jones can form his own league where he wins every year if he wants. They can both compete with the NFL. The fans will decide, and as usual, competition is whats best for fans/consumers. I say break the union. Break the monopoly. Play ball boys.

[bobblehead]

Mr. Smith is upholding the gains Eugene Upshaw negotiated successfully. The previous deal favored the players slightly. The owners vowed revenge -- failed to renew the recently expired collective bargain agreement and attempted to secure a $4 billion "loan" from the networks.

IMO Mr. Smith is an smart articulate black union chief that is standing "toe to toe" with white slave (oops I mean NFL) owners. The owners know the players have the courts on their side. Owner rhetoric attempts to turn the fans against players which works to an extent. A deal gets worked out since the owners do not want to be exposed for silly spending.

Stand-up and applaud the players for doing what is right.

You dishonor those that were actually cursed by being born/sold into slavery with such a ridiculous analogy.

[Guiness]

Cap in 2009 was $125-130 million.

An interesting thing...we had the uncapped year in 2010, and nothing spectacular happened, because the owners reingned themselves in, knowing what was coming in 2011.

If the player's injunction against a lockout succeeds, we could have an uncapped 2011 season. I wonder if the owners would behave again, or if Allen, Jones, Kroenke and, of course, Snyder would try and buy a SB?

Jones took a stab at it in 2010...

[bobblehead]

I'll just repeat a couple points that I thought were good so far.

1. This sucks because the Packers are on the verge of greatness
2. I'm definitely going to follow the Badgers very closely this year and I hope they can help me move on from the Packers


Owners mean nothing to me. There could be 32 publicly owned teams like the Packers and the product would be just as good. I'd just as soon see the pie get divvied up between the players who bring us the great entertainment rather than the 32 rich old guys who could very easily be replaced by 32 Mark Murphy's who make a million per year. And probably, the product would get better without the owners. It would be nothing without the players.

Again with your co op? The players could do just that, I mean, its so easy to build and market a 9 billion dollar a year business with zero money down. I'm suprised everyone doesn't do it.

[Guiness]

Somewhat true. It was a bad deal for the owners. The owners promised to screw the players in the next round of negotiations. The players are wiser. Manning, Brady and Brees can sue the owners with no consequences to themselves.

Herm Edwards mentioned that previous players that took the lead in previous negotiations never played in the league again. Both sides are extremely competitive. Its unlikely a settlement is close. Its just about pr at the moment. The posturing is done.

That's interesting. Are you implying that Brady, Manning and Brees will not play in the NFL again?

[pbmax]

Cap in 2009 was $125-130 million.

An interesting thing...we had the uncapped year in 2010, and nothing spectacular happened, because the owners reingned themselves in, knowing what was coming in 2011.

If the player's injunction against a lockout succeeds, we could have an uncapped 2011 season. I wonder if the owners would behave again, or if Allen, Jones, Kroenke and, of course, Snyder would try and buy a SB?

Jones took a stab at it in 2010...

They didn't go crazy, but both the Packers and Cowboys are close to , if not above that number for next year. If your memory is correct, 2011, after 2010, would represent minimal increases at best for two straight years. Of course, that $131 mil number was only one proposal.

[pbmax]

Not that I am one to take a unions side, but is asking to know how much the owners are making off of your VERY specific skill set so out of line? I mean, the owners have a right to play with scabs after all, but they want the best. If the owners have the will power they can break this union. The NFL is ONE corporation and that is the way they should organize so they don't lose any more collusion lawsuits. They can then set the rules of play within their organization as they see fit for the future. The players can feel free to form their own leagues if they want. Jerry Jones can form his own league where he wins every year if he wants. They can both compete with the NFL. The fans will decide, and as usual, competition is whats best for fans/consumers. I say break the union. Break the monopoly. Play ball boys.

While collusion might go away, the risk of anti-trust violations increases. And efforts to maintain near exclusive stadium use and certain part of TV contracts might be under siege.

That plus the injection of investment dollars from a stock offering would need to be very large to meet the current owner's needs to give up control. With individual ownership of teams, I cannot forsee this happening.

[rbaloha1]

That's interesting. Are you implying that Brady, Manning and Brees will not play in the NFL again?


No. Its why franchise players were picked and not lower rated players. Ever heard of Kevin Mawae?

Owners can not get revenge on Manning, Brady and Brees since they are critical to the league. Is Kevin Mawae?

[rbaloha1]

Well, I think actually phrasing what the league is proposing as a "cut" or "the players writing a check to the owners" is simply buying into the rhetoric of the PA. Unlike, say, the NHL lockout where the owners actually won a reduction in all current contracts (so guys actually did have to give money back) the NFL owners are simply asking that the formula by which the salary cap is determined (which is how the players part of the pie is actually allocated) does not increase as fast on a year-to-year basis as it has in the past.

The owners are greedy bastards. The players have no choice but to force litigation. What would the owner's position be if they had that $4 billion? Owners are almost "begging" the players back to negotiating table.

[bobblehead]

Do you remember where you saw this? I am behind in my second job's reading, but last I saw the owners were claiming to be ready to release more information than they had ever made available to the Union and more than the clubs got reports on (from other clubs). However, the data was still profit data and did not include expense data. So claiming to hand out more info than ever before only points to the limited nature of previous disclosures.

The reason expense data is important is because owners report expenses that often belong either as profit or in another category entirely. The league had to release it complete financial picture during the last federal court proceeding and as an example, both Norman Braman and Mike Brown reported their own salaries as expenses, not profit. Brown took a double accounting dip in two different years, collecting salary as both GM and President. Each amount was recorded as expense.

If he did the jobs and the salaries were within the norm I don't see the problem with this. Should he do the job for free? Those may very well be reasonable expenses. Profit is for the company and what he is paid for legitimate services should be expensed. I reckon my friends employees think he should do his job for free since he is the owner as well, but he doesn't feel the same way....do we add the players salaries for playing back into the profits before we figure the owners cuts??

[pbmax]

You know, at a very basic level, this is a negotiation about money. And being emotional about either side really makes it harder to view the reality of the situation. Singling out the owners without knowing their situation is just throwing darts at a wall, whether its Jerry Jones or Richardson. We just don't know. And blaming the players reps or Smith is just as pointless. We don't know whose ego might be out of control (if at all) and how can you trumpet business expertise on one side and blame the other for maximizing leverage?

It occurs to me that this debate is about one thing. A fixed $1 billion off the top would be a bad idea if that is all there is to it. Not because it wasn't enough, but that it was fixed. As revenues grow, that $1 billion off the top looks less and less appealing. Now a complicating factor in all this is supplemental revenue sharing. If that should end and the owners have publicly stated they would like it to, it would change the revenue picture, lowering it for both the players and smaller market teams.

The other thing I don't know: has it always been $1 billion? I doubt that was the case in 1992. So that begs the question: how has it been adjusted in the past? Is it already an adjustable number despite reports that its a strictly flat skim off the top?

And that is another reason to just move to a flat percentage and forget a trumped up Total Revenue Figure.

[rbaloha1]

You know, at a very basic level, this is a negotiation about money. And being emotional about either side really makes it harder to view the reality of the situation. Singling out the owners without knowing their situation is just throwing darts at a wall, whether its Jerry Jones or Richardson. We just don't know. And blaming the players reps or Smith is just as pointless. We don't know whose ego might be out of control (if at all) and how can you trumpet business expertise on one side and blame the other for maximizing leverage?

It occurs to me that this debate is about one thing. A fixed $1 billion off the top would be a bad idea if that is all there is to it. Not because it wasn't enough, but that it was fixed. As revenues grow, that $1 billion off the top looks less and less appealing. Now a complicating factor in all this is supplemental revenue sharing. If that should end and the owners have publicly stated they would like it to, it would change the revenue picture, lowering it for both the players and smaller market teams.

The other thing I don't know: has it always been $1 billion? I doubt that was the case in 1992. So that begs the question: how has it been adjusted in the past? Is it already an adjustable number despite reports that its a strictly flat skim off the top?

And that is another reason to just move to a flat percentage and forget a trumped up Total Revenue Figure.

The $1 billion was reduced to $185 million on Friday. What does that tell you?

[pbmax]

If he did the jobs and the salaries were within the norm I don't see the problem with this. Should he do the job for free? Those may very well be reasonable expenses. Profit is for the company and what he is paid for legitimate services should be expensed. I reckon my friends employees think he should do his job for free since he is the owner as well, but he doesn't feel the same way....do we add the players salaries for playing back into the profits before we figure the owners cuts??

The owner can do what he wishes with whatever profit may exist. But for accounting purposes, the owner as employee receiving a salary has always been troublesome. Because its a tried and true method to lower profit numbers. I suspect there are laws about this as well as Accounting Principles that speak to it as well. Dan or RG might be able to speak more to that point.

Owners have often withdrawn money from the company for their own benefit. But such a withdrawl, as opposed to salary, is counted against the equity in the company, not as a salary expense. But we are well past the limit of my expertise, and this is mostly a guess on my part. But such a withdrawl would not affect the profit for that year.

The other problem with the NFL owners case in 1992, despite filling the same role for years, Braman and Brown only paid themselves in certain years. So it would seem likely that one year they were withdrawing equity from the business, and another year they classified it as salary, depending on what suit their purposes in an accounting sense.

[pbmax]

The $1 billion was reduced to $185 million on Friday. What does that tell you?

Once more, with a link or context?

[mraynrand]

I think I can safely say I am now decertifiably insane.

[pbmax]

I think I can safely say I am now decertifiably insane.

Its fun, in the way that pledging a fraternity is fun. That is to say, its a disaster that you hope is followed up with the promise of a great time, women and job offers in your future.

[swede]

Its fun, in the way that pledging a fraternity is fun. That is to say, its a disaster that you hope is followed up with the promise of a great time, women and job offers in your future.

If the disaster that is my life could be followed by a promise of a decent bowel movement, a smaller prostate, and 12 months without the car or house blowing a major function I would be pretty satisfied.

[Smidgeon]

Not that I am one to take a unions side, but is asking to know how much the owners are making off of your VERY specific skill set so out of line? I mean, the owners have a right to play with scabs after all, but they want the best. If the owners have the will power they can break this union. The NFL is ONE corporation and that is the way they should organize so they don't lose any more collusion lawsuits. They can then set the rules of play within their organization as they see fit for the future. The players can feel free to form their own leagues if they want. Jerry Jones can form his own league where he wins every year if he wants. They can both compete with the NFL. The fans will decide, and as usual, competition is whats best for fans/consumers. I say break the union. Break the monopoly. Play ball boys.

I don't think hat would really work. It would throw the draft out of whack, remove competetive parity (leaving forced parity in its wake), and limit progress and promotions to one internal hierarchy. At least with the current version (an oligopoly), competetiveness is allowing the better organizations (the Packers, Steelers, Ravens, Falcons, etc) to rise to the top while those with poorer structures and decision-making (the 49ers, Cardinals, Browns, Bengals, etc) to flounder. Plus, could you see Jerry Jones giving up ownership of the Cowboys? I admit, that would be absolutely hilarious to watch...

[rbaloha1]

Once more, with a link or context?

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14798239/nfl-work-stoppage-looms-as-labor-talks-fail

Numerous links -- this is just one.

[pbmax]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14798239/nfl-work-stoppage-looms-as-labor-talks-fail

Numerous links -- this is just one.

That number makes little sense in that most other reports had the NFL willing to split the difference on a $640 million divide. Even if you claim only half that figure to describe what one side might have to sacrifice for a deal, that figure far exceeds $185.

So I am still unsure what you think $185/320/640 million tells you. I made mention of the owners current situation of $1 billion off the top. The problem a fixed figure represented was the point of the post you responded too.

You seem to be commenting on the fate of the additional $1 billion they initially requested. But it isn't down to $185 million. If the sides were $640 apart from a $1 billion dollar initial divide, then splitting the difference means the increase has become about $500 million.

And that reporting has been superceded by reporting that the split the difference proposal lacked any language to deal with revenues ABOVE 4% growth. In the case of the NFL, a very familiar scenario.

[SkinBasket]

The NFLPA acting like children again. Kind of hard to believe they ever had any interest, or mental capacity, to resolve this...


The NFL Players Association is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending next month's draft in New York, according to multiple league sources. The NFLPA already has contacted 17 top prospects that ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft and informed them not to go.

Thus, when NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announces the name of the first player selected, the player will not walk on to the stage at Radio City Music Hall as has been the custom. And the player will not be there to do interviews with ESPN or NFL Network. The draft will go on, but not in the manner in which it has been conducted before.

"As of right now, this is 100 percent happening," said one source familiar with the Players Association's thinking. "This is going down."

The Players Association even has gone so far as to consider placing the players on another competing network to do post-pick interviews, though no final decisions have been made. Another source said that, in this day and age, it's possible that the top prospects also could appear on a social media network platform, only.

[RashanGary]

It's hypocritical, the same people who want the owners to not break and make the players struggle for money are complaining when the players try to put the same type of financial pressure on the owners.

[RashanGary]

Again with your co op? The players could do just that, I mean, its so easy to build and market a 9 billion dollar a year business with zero money down. I'm suprised everyone doesn't do it.


Touche, point taken. Capitalism, even though greed is a big part of the driving force, it does seem to work a little better. I can't argue that.

I still like it when you can mix a little socialism in with it though. Keep just enough of a carrot out there for the money seekers to keep going out there diving for their treasure, but then balance it off by rewarding the regular people who just want to work a job they like, help people and have a peaceful life. They are the backbone of this country, not the billionaires. The greed does play a role though. You can't take that out. I see your point.

[gbgary]

If the disaster that is my life could be followed by a promise of a decent bowel movement, a smaller prostate, and 12 months without the car or house blowing a major function I would be pretty satisfied.

you sound like clefty.

[SkinBasket]

It's hypocritical, the same people who want the owners to not break and make the players struggle for money are complaining when the players try to put the same type of financial pressure on the owners.

It's not financial. It's petty, childlike behavior from a bunch of people who have been treated like spoiled, insanely rich children who still demand a pony with a golden saddle every year, their entire lives. And when they get what they want, they want twice that the next year.

What's hypocritical is all these fucking douche-bags who have been quoted 20 thousand times saying, "It's a business," when they fuck the team over and accept .40 cents to play somewhere else, but when the owners lay down business terms, it's all about fairness and sacrifice. Boo hoo.

[Pugger]

The NFLPA acting like children again. Kind of hard to believe they ever had any interest, or mental capacity, to resolve this...

*The NFL Players Association is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending next month's draft in New York, according to multiple league sources. The NFLPA already has contacted 17 top prospects that ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft and informed them not to go.

Thus, when NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announces the name of the first player selected, the player will not walk on to the stage at Radio City Music Hall as has been the custom. And the player will not be there to do interviews with ESPN or NFL Network. The draft will go on, but not in the manner in which it has been conducted before.

"As of right now, this is 100 percent happening," said one source familiar with the Players Association's thinking. "This is going down."

The Players Association even has gone so far as to consider placing the players on another competing network to do post-pick interviews, though no final decisions have been made. Another source said that, in this day and age, it's possible that the top prospects also could appear on a social media network platform, only. *

This is really stupid of the NFLPA because it is proof to the world that the union decertified in name only so they could get this mess away from mediation and into the courts. And this behavior will help convince a judge too.

[Smidgeon]

*The NFL Players Association is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending next month's draft in New York, according to multiple league sources. The NFLPA already has contacted 17 top prospects that ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft and informed them not to go.

Thus, when NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announces the name of the first player selected, the player will not walk on to the stage at Radio City Music Hall as has been the custom. And the player will not be there to do interviews with ESPN or NFL Network. The draft will go on, but not in the manner in which it has been conducted before.

"As of right now, this is 100 percent happening," said one source familiar with the Players Association's thinking. "This is going down."

The Players Association even has gone so far as to consider placing the players on another competing network to do post-pick interviews, though no final decisions have been made. Another source said that, in this day and age, it's possible that the top prospects also could appear on a social media network platform, only. *

This is really stupid of the NFLPA because it is proof to the world that the union decertified in name only so they could get this mess away from mediation and into the courts. And this behavior will help convince a judge too.

I'm pretty sure they didn't have the clout to do this even when they still were a union. The drafted players aren't part of the union until after either they are drafted or they sign a contract (don't know which--the contract makes more sense, but there was probably a provision in the now-defunct CBA defining that). Having said that, the NFLPA* is overextending itself here.

[vince]

The slave accommodations these days are an OUTRAGE!

http://www.celebritydetective.com/pictures/devin-hester-house-riverwoods-illinois.jpg

Adrian Peterson compared his football status to slavery today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/03/adrian-peterson-players-place-in-nfl-like-modern-day-slavery/1?csp=34sports&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNfl-TopStories+%28Sports+-+NFL+-+Top+Stories%29

"It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.'
...
Peterson, entering his fifth season, is due about $10.7 million in the 2011 season, the final year of a five-year contract worth about $40 million.
I don't think that's going to score points with the public.

[Bossman641]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/25236/lockout11-say-it-aint-so-adrian-peterson


As we noted earlier Tuesday, Minnesota Vikings tailback Adrian Peterson is part of a new online reality show and is doing some promotional work for it. ESPN.com's interview can be found over on Page 2. But I think Doug Farrar’s interview over at Yahoo! Sports will resonate for some time.

In the interview, conducted moments after the NFL Players Association decertified last Friday and posted Tuesday, Peterson called the NFL’s arrangement with his players "modern-day slavery" and a "rip-off." He added that players "are getting robbed" and all but provided a caricature of a modern-day athlete with no touch on reality.

Here are the key quotes:

On his message to people who are tired of labor talk:

Adrian Peterson: We're business-minded, also. It's not just fun and games. A lot of football players, whether it's Sunday or Monday night -- we're out there on the field, competing, hitting each other. But people don't see everything else behind it. It's a job for us, too -- every day of the week. We're in different states, sometimes thousands of miles away from our families and kids, and a lot of people don't look at it like that. All some people see is, 'Oh, we're not going to be around football.' But how the players look at it … the players are getting robbed. They are. The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that…

On other players feeling the same way:

AP: It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.' There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we're not all on the same page — I don't know. I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done.
But this crazy idea about an 18-game season … I'm sure they want more entertainment and more revenue, but we're not going to see a pinch of that (the increased revenue), and it's just the business we're in.

I’ve gotten to know Peterson a little bit over the past four years, visiting his house once and meeting part of his family for a profile I wrote of him in my newspaper days. Unless something has changed dramatically, I’ve always found him to be a thoughtful, earnest and charitable human being. He has in many ways been the opposite of the caricature he’s now fulfilled. But I'm sorry, I can’t offer him any defense in this instance.

Let’s skip the usual arguments about spoiled athletes and their sense of entitlement, and focus squarely on a term that should never, ever be used to describe anything -- let alone a job that will compensate Peterson $10.72 million in 2011.

There is no such thing as "modern-day slavery" unless the instance includes the complete denial of human rights, unjust incarceration and physical force used to require free work. Anything short of that is a bad deal, not "modern-day slavery." Owners might profit off players, perhaps disproportionately to what the players themselves receive, but everyone is making money and no one is there against their will.

I’m guessing Peterson intended to use the analogy to describe what he might consider an unequal distribution of the NFL’s $9 billion in revenues. Still, I hope he realizes how inappropriate it is to put the situation of NFL players anywhere in the stratosphere of slavery.

The conflict between NFL owners and players won’t be settled by public opinion. But Peterson certainly didn’t do himself or his union colleagues any favors with these series of comments. What he said was so offensive, even for someone who no track record of controversial comments, that I think it will paint both sides of this lockout with the brush of greed and inhumanity. Let me know when this whole labor thing is over. Please.

Honestly, I find both sides at fault in this fiasco but the players are really pissing me off with their childish, petty ways. Equating making $11 million a year to slavery?? Ya, ok AD.

I think the longer this goes on the more public opinion will back the owners. We already know that a lot of players are full of themselves and love to hear themselves talk. It would not surprise me in the least to see more comments like this coming out from players while the owners take a much more aligned stance.

Don't forget how public opinion swayed in Favre vs TT once Favre opened his mouth.

[Bossman641]

Adrian Peterson compared his football status to slavery today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/03/adrian-peterson-players-place-in-nfl-like-modern-day-slavery/1?csp=34sports&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNfl-TopStories+%28Sports+-+NFL+-+Top+Stories%29

I don't think that's going to score points with the public.

Damnit Vince, you beat me to the punch.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6220232

Nick Collins disagrees with the NFLPA position to boycott the draft.


Current NFL player Nick Collins, a safety with the Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers, said Tuesday that he believes prospects should be able to attend the draft.

"I don't thnk it's fair, but at the same time, we're in a situation where we don't know what's going on," Collins said on ESPN First Take. "But at the end of the day, you got to let those guys enjoy that moment. That's the only thing they have left."

Meanwhile, Adrian Peterson calls the NFL "modern day slavery". Stupid.


Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson is so frustrated by the failed labor talks that he went as far as calling the NFL "modern-day slavery" in an interview with Yahoo! Sports last Friday shortly after the union decertified.

"It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money ... the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey -- without us, there's no football,' " he said.

Peterson's "slavery" comment has since been removed from the blog post. Author Doug Farrar said on Twitter that Peterson said it twice but he removed it because "I want to give him the opportunity to explain what he really meant. Because I don't think he meant to connect the two."

[gbgary]

i agree with nick. these guys are going to get drafted without the fanfare, without all the photos and interviews, depriving their families of the spectacle that is the nfl draft. stupid idea asking them to stay home.

[RashanGary]

People like AD are going to make sure this doesn't go well for the players. Idiot!

[Lurker64]

People like AD are going to make sure this doesn't go well for the players. Idiot!

In any argument between professional athletes and businessmen, you can rely on more dumb statements to come out of the mouths of the athletes.

[Bretsky]

http://www.620wtmj.com/sports/gregmatzek/117900414.html

Trying to figure out who is at fault in the now closed labor negotiations between the NFL and the players association is maddening. On the surface it appears to be a conflict between two entities who have more couch cushion money than I have to my name.

While the dollars at stake may not be relatable to you and I, dollars are the root of the conflict. I'd say that up until Friday, the majority of people were on the side of the players, but after a carefully, and well crafted response to the cease in negotiations by the owners, I've sensed a shift in thinking.

The smartest thing the owners have done in reducing their blame is make public their offer to the players. I have listed the bullet points in the offer below. What I can't comment on is the level of truth in the whole mess...all we need are television and radio commercials slamming each other and the situation will resemble a Presidential election.

Here's what the owners supposedly offered the players. I'll let you decide who is most to blame:

1. To more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury, the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multiyear injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the off season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

[mmmdk]

I can't find heads or tails of this money conflict but I do know that greed rules. With that said, I'd like to point out that it is us, the fans, that pays for the gluttony of players & owners.
I rescently got my PACKERS package from Packers-proshop & I paid a sh!t load for the Packers Championship gear and it got me thinking (Oh,I did the AR Champ belt today to a fellow NFL fan...yeah, over there in Denmark but it counts). :lol:
NFL has become too much of a Mickey Mouse bobble world and I don't like it; I believe I will follow the Packers regardless 'cos of the structure and nature of the organization but I feel the rest of the NFL can go screw themselves...they remind me of Brett Favre: CLASSLESS!

[bobblehead]

I don't think hat would really work. It would throw the draft out of whack, remove competetive parity (leaving forced parity in its wake), and limit progress and promotions to one internal hierarchy. At least with the current version (an oligopoly), competetiveness is allowing the better organizations (the Packers, Steelers, Ravens, Falcons, etc) to rise to the top while those with poorer structures and decision-making (the 49ers, Cardinals, Browns, Bengals, etc) to flounder. Plus, could you see Jerry Jones giving up ownership of the Cowboys? I admit, that would be absolutely hilarious to watch...

But the NFL IS one corporation. You don't see my team being allowed to compete in THEIR league do you? Its not a free market competition. I have to organize an entire league of my own and even then I don't get to play the Browns. The Cowboys are not their own independent entity either. They are forced to play a schedule. The NFL is one entity that has several franchises competing within its market. Their "corporate rules" are designed to keep it competitive and force teams to compete for the betterment of the entire entity. If not there would be no minimum salary cap. The corporation has no more of a monopoly than Fox news or CNN. But the anchors on each network are competing against each other as well as the ones from the other network. If the USFL pops up again it competes with the NFL.

My point of all this is simple. If the players don't like it, they are free to start their own league and compete with the NFL. They have no inherent "right" to the owners profits. Simply put they are doing a job and the owners can pay them if they want to. The only reason some liberal judge ever ruled for the players was some sense that they somehow "deserved" more for their job than they were being paid. I wish a judge would demand that my wifes employer share his profits, but it won't happen. If she sued the judge would laugh and tell her go work somewhere else if she doesn't like his pay. Or open her own business.

I am NOT anti employee by any means, but I think the players actually should form their own league if they want leverage in negotiations. Maybe with some competition for the services of the players the owners might pay them more. Thats the way the free market works.

[Smidgeon]

But the NFL IS one corporation. You don't see my team being allowed to compete in THEIR league do you? Its not a free market competition. I have to organize an entire league of my own and even then I don't get to play the Browns. The Cowboys are not their own independent entity either. They are forced to play a schedule. The NFL is one entity that has several franchises competing within its market. Their "corporate rules" are designed to keep it competitive and force teams to compete for the betterment of the entire entity. If not there would be no minimum salary cap. The corporation has no more of a monopoly than Fox news or CNN. But the anchors on each network are competing against each other as well as the ones from the other network. If the USFL pops up again it competes with the NFL.

My point of all this is simple. If the players don't like it, they are free to start their own league and compete with the NFL. They have no inherent "right" to the owners profits. Simply put they are doing a job and the owners can pay them if they want to. The only reason some liberal judge ever ruled for the players was some sense that they somehow "deserved" more for their job than they were being paid. I wish a judge would demand that my wifes employer share his profits, but it won't happen. If she sued the judge would laugh and tell her go work somewhere else if she doesn't like his pay. Or open her own business.

I am NOT anti employee by any means, but I think the players actually should form their own league if they want leverage in negotiations. Maybe with some competition for the services of the players the owners might pay them more. Thats the way the free market works.

Free market competition is not the opposite of a single corporation. The NFL is an oligopoly. 32 different corporations (that admittedly have a unique way of "hiring" employees for their first run in the businesses; after that, free agency is closer to free market).

In truth, the NFL is similar to the cable/satellite industry. Due to infrastructure, there are limited number of companies who can compete on the same level (an oligopoly as opposed to a monopoly which is a single corporation). In the same way, even if you did field a team (like the UFL), you simply couldn't compete with a single NFL team in a free market due to infrastructure. Not a single UFL team could compete with the facilities, fandom, and talent level of the worst NFL team, which would eventually lead to a collapse of any new franchise that wasn't supported by the brotherhood of the NFL.

The USFL, XFL, AFL (Arena), NFL, WFL, and UFL are all conglamorate oligopolies that are or have competed against each other in the past. Some could be successful simultaneously (NFL and AFL), some could not. But it's competing oligopolies--not monopolies. There's still internal competition between the franchises that you simply wouldn't have in a single corporation.

By the way, I completely agree with your second paragraph. The players absolutely can go create their new league separate from the NFL. But I also would follow that up by saying I think they wouldn't have the stadiums or the capital to build stadiums (the infrastructure) to make that model sustainable. Many of these players are poor with money (thus the Brunell's of the world--or was it Bledsoe?) and therefore wouldn't have the financial savvy to make a new model work. I'm not saying all, just many (and probably most). Maybe it could work. Maybe it'd be worth a try. But I really don't think even they'd be able to compete. The NFL is a juggarnaut of an oligopoly that--without trying--could roll over any competition--for now.

It's an idea I hadn't thought of, but it would be fascinating to watch though.

[rbaloha1]

Just like the players can form their own league, the owners can also REPLACE PLAYERS WITH NEW PLAYERS AND PAY MINIMUM WAGE.

[pbmax]

OK. Best guess as to what this gesture looks like and means. I have utterly no idea unless he means he's going to start knocking heads together like Moe Howard. By leaving the room. :crazy:


Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, not a bit humbler after last month’s Super Bowl seating fiasco or the prior day’s finding that the owners had abused their duty to max out revenues by cutting a deal for lockout insurance, opened a face-to-face meeting with the players on March 2 with the following message to the players who attended the session.

“I don’t think we’ve got your attention,” Jones said, according to several players who spoke anonymously to Trotter. “You clearly don’t understand what we’re saying, and we’re not hearing what you’re saying. So I guess we’re going to have to show you to get your attention.”

Per Trotter, Jones then tapped his fists together. The players interpreted the gesture as a sign that a lockout was coming. (Maybe he was simply using Friends code for giving the finger.)

Jones then stood up and walked out. Panthers owner Jerry Richardson reportedly prepared to leave as well, but Patriots owner Robert Kraft put a hand on Richardson’s forearm, prompting Richardson to stay put.

h/t: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183342/1/index.htm

via: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/jerry-jones-gesture-may-have-set-the-stage-for-decertification/

[bobblehead]

Free market competition is not the opposite of a single corporation. The NFL is an oligopoly. 32 different corporations (that admittedly have a unique way of "hiring" employees for their first run in the businesses; after that, free agency is closer to free market).

In truth, the NFL is similar to the cable/satellite industry. Due to infrastructure, there are limited number of companies who can compete on the same level (an oligopoly as opposed to a monopoly which is a single corporation). In the same way, even if you did field a team (like the UFL), you simply couldn't compete with a single NFL team in a free market due to infrastructure. Not a single UFL team could compete with the facilities, fandom, and talent level of the worst NFL team, which would eventually lead to a collapse of any new franchise that wasn't supported by the brotherhood of the NFL.

The USFL, XFL, AFL (Arena), NFL, WFL, and UFL are all conglomerate oligopolies that are or have competed against each other in the past. Some could be successful simultaneously (NFL and AFL), some could not. But it's competing oligopolies--not monopolies. There's still internal competition between the franchises that you simply wouldn't have in a single corporation.

By the way, I completely agree with your second paragraph. The players absolutely can go create their new league separate from the NFL. But I also would follow that up by saying I think they wouldn't have the stadiums or the capital to build stadiums (the infrastructure) to make that model sustainable. Many of these players are poor with money (thus the Brunell's of the world--or was it Bledsoe?) and therefore wouldn't have the financial savvy to make a new model work. I'm not saying all, just many (and probably most). Maybe it could work. Maybe it'd be worth a try. But I really don't think even they'd be able to compete. The NFL is a juggarnaut of an oligopoly that--without trying--could roll over any competition--for now.

It's an idea I hadn't thought of, but it would be fascinating to watch though.

Frst, I didn't mean to imply that the NFL was a monopoly or oligopoly. I meant that in its function its a single entity of 32 divisions. Sort of like ABC has several "shows" that compete for airtime. The NFL has created a league that allows 32 "shows" to compete for the title. They all must compete in the NFL's rule set regarding salary caps, roster sizes, etc. Every team is reliant on the other teams as with no league the "franchise" would be worthless. My point was regarding the original "collusion" lawsuit where players won free agency. If you view the NFL as one entity the ruling was ridiculous. Players have always been free agents. They can go to the USFL, or do another job. The idea that the NFL is required to allow them to shift from franchise to franchise at will given the unique business here was crazy. Thus, we needed a salary cap and other rules to be implemented after that decision to re balance the playing field. Without a cap, we would have a situation where Dan Snyder would win every super bowl (or Paul Allen) and the entire product would lose money. For the NFL to thrive every team MUST be forced to at least attempt to be competitive.

Now as far as them competing with the NFL, I agree, that in the beginning getting stadium contracts, TV contracts et al would make it a slow start...BUT that is what happens when you enter a market. You start out behind and try to compete. If you do compete you deserve the riches. If the players form a league and it thrives, they can have the profits....until then, they deserve exactly what the NFL chooses to pay them. AS rb said...minimum wage if they want. The ownership of the NFL has to decide if its worth putting an inferior product on the field, or if they give up more money. But its their choice to make (not the players). The players only choice is, do you wish to play for what someone is willing to pay you?

[bobblehead]

Touche, point taken. Capitalism, even though greed is a big part of the driving force, it does seem to work a little better. I can't argue that.

I still like it when you can mix a little socialism in with it though. Keep just enough of a carrot out there for the money seekers to keep going out there diving for their treasure, but then balance it off by rewarding the regular people who just want to work a job they like, help people and have a peaceful life. They are the backbone of this country, not the billionaires. The greed does play a role though. You can't take that out. I see your point.

I'll give you my advice. Work for a single owner small business. They tend to treat employees better. As long as you just want to work a job you like and value respect and decent pay without envying the owner you will be happy. The true backbone of the country are the guys who take a risk. I know a high school dropout worth $17 million. He gives his employees big bonuses every year. He knows all 300 of his employees. Knows their spouses and most of the names of their children. I value guys like him more than any 10 CEO's of fortune 500 companies. He is the lifeblood of this country because HE makes the lives those 300 people desire possible. They have value, no doubt. But he is the risk taker and the innovator that made their happiness easier to achieve.

[Bretsky]

Mark Murphy gave an awesome interview. He's been on all angles. He's been a player rep, he worked for the union after he retired, and now he's with the owners.

He noted several things

He noted the owners offered to provide all audited financials to the playere from 06 when the last agreement went down
He noted the owners were offering several concessions that they would only give up if the 18gm season was agreed to
He noted on the last effort the owners dropped that extended schedule idea for two years while still giving concessions
He noted he was very disappointed the players union walked away from their offer with no counter
He strongly believes that from the get go, the players didn't want an agreemen
He strongly believes the players believe they will do best by rolling the dice, disbanding, and taking this through the legislative process
He sounded sincere, honest, and throughly disappointed in his dealings with the new commander in charge

[Smidgeon]

Frst, I didn't mean to imply that the NFL was a monopoly or oligopoly. I meant that in its function its a single entity of 32 divisions. Sort of like ABC has several "shows" that compete for airtime. The NFL has created a league that allows 32 "shows" to compete for the title. They all must compete in the NFL's rule set regarding salary caps, roster sizes, etc. Every team is reliant on the other teams as with no league the "franchise" would be worthless. My point was regarding the original "collusion" lawsuit where players won free agency. If you view the NFL as one entity the ruling was ridiculous. Players have always been free agents. They can go to the USFL, or do another job. The idea that the NFL is required to allow them to shift from franchise to franchise at will given the unique business here was crazy. Thus, we needed a salary cap and other rules to be implemented after that decision to re balance the playing field. Without a cap, we would have a situation where Dan Snyder would win every super bowl (or Paul Allen) and the entire product would lose money. For the NFL to thrive every team MUST be forced to at least attempt to be competitive.

Now as far as them competing with the NFL, I agree, that in the beginning getting stadium contracts, TV contracts et al would make it a slow start...BUT that is what happens when you enter a market. You start out behind and try to compete. If you do compete you deserve the riches. If the players form a league and it thrives, they can have the profits....until then, they deserve exactly what the NFL chooses to pay them. AS rb said...minimum wage if they want. The ownership of the NFL has to decide if its worth putting an inferior product on the field, or if they give up more money. But its their choice to make (not the players). The players only choice is, do you wish to play for what someone is willing to pay you?

Well said. I see what you're saying.

[Lurker64]

Just like the players can form their own league, the owners can also REPLACE PLAYERS WITH NEW PLAYERS AND PAY MINIMUM WAGE.

Not in this case they can't. They would be in breach of contract.

[rbaloha1]

Not in this case they can't. They would be in breach of contract.

What breach? The union does not exist.

[mmmdk]

Just like the players can form their own league, the owners can also REPLACE PLAYERS WITH NEW PLAYERS AND PAY MINIMUM WAGE.

I could beat out Crosby, regardless of a lockout, but I'll take that ticket to kick! :lol: WOOT WOOT

[Lurker64]

What breach? The union does not exist.

The contract that Aaron Rodgers has signed is not a contract between the union and the league. It is a contract between Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers. Even though the union exists, all of the teams and all of the players still exist. The players are now just independent contractors. That does not mean, however, that teams can indiscriminately ignore their contracts. A contract signed by a player which guarantees any amount of money must still be honored by an NFL team to the extent of the guarantee.

So the owners cannot replace all of the players. When they played games with replacement players, that was a strike not a lockout. There is a significant difference.

[rbaloha1]

The contract that Aaron Rodgers has signed is not a contract between the union and the league. It is a contract between Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers. Even though the union exists, all of the teams and all of the players still exist. The players are now just independent contractors. That does not mean, however, that teams can indiscriminately ignore their contracts. A contract signed by a player which guarantees any amount of money must still be honored by an NFL team to the extent of the guarantee.

So the owners cannot replace all of the players. When they played games with replacement players, that was a strike not a lockout. There is a significant difference.

The point is a band of players could get together and form another union. The owners could negotiate with the new union.

Being an independent contractor does not guarantee anything.

[Lurker64]

Being an independent contractor does not guarantee anything.

Being an independent contractor means that you have signed a contract, and if the other party to the contract violates the terms of that contract then they are in breach of contract. This is almost tautological

[pbmax]

Mark Murphy gave an awesome interview. He's been on all angles. He's been a player rep, he worked for the union after he retired, and now he's with the owners.

He noted several things

He noted the owners offered to provide all audited financials to the playere from 06 when the last agreement went down
He noted the owners were offering several concessions that they would only give up if the 18gm season was agreed to
He noted on the last effort the owners dropped that extended schedule idea for two years while still giving concessions
He noted he was very disappointed the players union walked away from their offer with no counter
He strongly believes that from the get go, the players didn't want an agreemen
He strongly believes the players believe they will do best by rolling the dice, disbanding, and taking this through the legislative process
He sounded sincere, honest, and throughly disappointed in his dealings with the new commander in charge

Link?

[RashanGary]

Mark Murphy gave an awesome interview. He's been on all angles. He's been a player rep, he worked for the union after he retired, and now he's with the owners.

He noted several things

He noted the owners offered to provide all audited financials to the playere from 06 when the last agreement went down
He noted the owners were offering several concessions that they would only give up if the 18gm season was agreed to
He noted on the last effort the owners dropped that extended schedule idea for two years while still giving concessions
He noted he was very disappointed the players union walked away from their offer with no counter
He strongly believes that from the get go, the players didn't want an agreemen
He strongly believes the players believe they will do best by rolling the dice, disbanding, and taking this through the legislative process
He sounded sincere, honest, and throughly disappointed in his dealings with the new commander in charge

This is interesting. For some reason I trust Mark Murphy more than Jones or Richardson.

[mraynrand]

Being an independent contractor means that you have signed a contract, and if the other party to the contract violates the terms of that contract then they are in breach of contract. This is almost tautological

When Rodgers fails to show for his first OTA, he is in breach of contract, no? The Packers can then fire him and replace him with Jerry Babb - allowing any other team to sign Rodgers. Is suspect the Packers will put up with his delinquency.

[pbmax]

When Rodgers fails to show for his first OTA, he is in breach of contract, no? The Packers can then fire him and replace him with Jerry Babb - allowing any other team to sign Rodgers. Is suspect the Packers will put up with his delinquency.

He is locked out, so he could show up, but he will be waiting outside the gate in full uniform.

[pbmax]

Here is the Murphy interview from Florio on PFT Live:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/mark-murphy-interview-transcript/

[rbaloha1]

Being an independent contractor means that you have signed a contract, and if the other party to the contract violates the terms of that contract then they are in breach of contract. This is almost tautological

What terms are being violated when there is a lockout?

[Lurker64]

What terms are being violated when there is a lockout?

Are you moving the goalpost here, or do you grant my earlier point that teams cannot simply acquire all new players during a lockout? The fact that they can't simply get all new players during a lockout is due to the fact that under federal labor law, you may only hire temporarly replacement workers. One does not prove to the players that their services are fungible when they can only be replaced briefly.

But specifically, the contract terms that would be violated in a lockout would be if the legal system agrees that the decertification is not a sham and allows to to go through, then it would be illegal to lock out non-union labor. It's a clear breach of anti-trust for one thing, since 32 teams have collectively decided to not allow any of their employees to work, and moreover it's the exact same contract breach when you see a team locking a player out of their training facility when they plan to trade/cut him so that he doesn't "injure" himself. Happened with Steve McNair a few years back.

[rbaloha1]

Are you moving the goalpost here, or do you grant my earlier point that teams cannot simply acquire all new players during a lockout? The fact that they can't simply get all new players during a lockout is due to the fact that under federal labor law, you may only hire temporarly replacement workers. One does not prove to the players that their services are fungible when they can only be replaced briefly.

But specifically, the contract terms that would be violated in a lockout would be if the legal system agrees that the decertification is not a sham and allows to to go through, then it would be illegal to lock out non-union labor. It's a clear breach of anti-trust for one thing, since 32 teams have collectively decided to not allow any of their employees to work, and moreover it's the exact same contract breach when you see a team locking a player out of their training facility when they plan to trade/cut him so that he doesn't "injure" himself. Happened with Steve McNair a few years back.

Call it what you want. The owners can hire "temporary" (scabs) for the next season and make huge profits since they do not have to "overpay" the greedy previous NFLPA players.

[swede]

It may be time for the Packerrats to decertify and take Joe to court. We do all the work. He gets all the profits. Not fair.

[Lurker64]

Call it what you want. The owners can hire "temporary" (scabs) for the next season and make huge profits since they do not have to "overpay" the greedy previous NFLPA players.

It's not the same thing though as hiring replacements during a strike. You hire replacements during a strike because you hope to break the union by encouraging people to cross the picket lines. During a lockout, you hire replacements because you want to maintain production... there's no picket line to cross because all of the players are locked out. So the league has nothing to gain by doing it.

[rbaloha1]

It's not the same thing though as hiring replacements during a strike. You hire replacements during a strike because you hope to break the union by encouraging people to cross the picket lines. During a lockout, you hire replacements because you want to maintain production... there's no picket line to cross because all of the players are locked out. So the league has nothing to gain by doing it.


Yes they do. Is it better to have an empty stadium or a whatever filled stadium? Is it better to have some tv and radio revenue or zero revenue? Isn't the revenue due to the savvy league owners? If so, why does it matter who fills the roster since the owners could conceivably collect higher profit margins without superstar player demands.

[Lurker64]

Yes they do. Is it better to have an empty stadium or a whatever filled stadium? Is it better to have some tv and radio revenue or zero revenue? Isn't the revenue due to the savvy league owners? If so, why does it matter who fills the roster since the owners could conceivably collect higher profit margins without superstar player demands.

Asking people to play full price to see Brooks Bollinger throw to Kai Bidde instead of Peyton Manning throwing to Reggie Wayne will do much more to permanently damage the brand than it would to actually make money. Fans would revolt.

[rbaloha1]

Asking people to play full price to see Brooks Bollinger throw to Kai Bidde instead of Peyton Manning throwing to Reggie Wayne will do much more to permanently damage the brand than it would to actually make money. Fans would revolt.

They already do by charging full price for pre season games and paying all players the same wage. What is the attendance for preseason games? The model is already in place. Remember the owners are smart and the players are dumb.

[Lurker64]

They already do by charging full price for pre season games and paying all players the same wage. What is the attendance for preseason games? The model is already in place. Remember the owners are smart and the players are dumb.

The only reason that most NFL teams are able to sell preseason games is because people buying regular season games are obligated to buy preseason tickets as well. If the entire season were preseason quality, nobody would buy tickets.

What's that about "paying all players the same wage" anyway? They do that in the playoffs too, you know. Is that a problem?

[rbaloha1]

The only reason that most NFL teams are able to sell preseason games is because people buying regular season games are obligated to buy preseason tickets as well. If the entire season were preseason quality, nobody would buy tickets.

What's that about "paying all players the same wage" anyway? They do that in the playoffs too, you know. Is that a problem?

No its not. The owners are so smart that they can find another Manning and Brady from whatever you want to call them players. Remember Kurt Warner?

[Lurker64]

No its not. The owners are so smart that they can find another Manning and Brady from whatever you want to call them players. Remember Kurt Warner?

But Manning and Brady are not only valuable to NFL teams because they throw touchdown passes with some reliability. They're valuable to NFL teams because they excite fans, and they get fans to buy tickets and jerseys, and to sign up for NFL Sunday Ticket. Even if they could find 32 guys on the street who are every bit as good as Brady, they still won't make as much money this season.

Remember, the reason this fight is taking place now, and not in August, is that neither side really wants to miss games this season.

[rbaloha1]

But Manning and Brady are not only valuable to NFL teams because they throw touchdown passes with some reliability. They're valuable to NFL teams because they excite fans, and they get fans to buy tickets and jerseys, and to sign up for NFL Sunday Ticket. Even if they could find 32 guys on the street who are every bit as good as Brady, they still won't make as much money this season.

Remember, the reason this fight is taking place now, and not in August, is that neither side really wants to miss games this season.


But the owners are so smart they can identify the players to retain a good profit margin. Who cares about the public?

[Lurker64]

But the owners are so smart they can identify the players to retain a good profit margin. Who cares about the public?

If you increase profit margin while drastically decreasing total revenue, you've done nothing positive.

Plus, it's not owners who find players... it's the scouts and general managers employed by the owner. Jim Irsay isn't going to be out there looking for quarterbacks, that's Bill Polian's job.

But in terms of who cares about the public ? here? Nobody. Neither the owners nor the players. They both simply need the public, since that's where their money comes from. But as far as Goodell and Smith are concerned you and I are just obstacles to be overcome before they can get all of the money in our wallets.

[rbaloha1]

If you increase profit margin while drastically decreasing total revenue, you've done nothing positive.

Plus, it's not owners who find players... it's the scouts and general managers employed by the owner. Jim Irsay isn't going to be out there looking for quarterbacks, that's Bill Polian's job.

But in terms of who cares about the public ? here? Nobody. Neither the owners nor the players. They both simply need the public, since that's where their money comes from. But as far as Goodell and Smith are concerned you and I are just obstacles to be overcome before they can get all of the money in our wallets.

The point is the owners are the geniuses that HIRE the personnel to secure the talent. Its the owners that do not care about the public. Due to the NFL's popularity the owners think they can put whomever out there and still make a profit.

If the owners felt otherwise they would make a legitimate offer rather than continuing to negotiate and forcing the public to turn against the players.

[mraynrand]

He is locked out, so he could show up, but he will be waiting outside the gate in full uniform.

I'm confused. I thought the lockout could only be enacted against the union. So there is a lockout of individual players? Based on what? There is that lawsuit, but I thought not all players are named on it. What justification is there for a lockout by owners of individual players with which they have a contract?

[Lurker64]

Its the owners that do not care about the public.

No, the players also do not care about the public. Both sides in the negotiation are solely interested in getting the best deal for them, if their interests align along with the public or against it that is purely accidental.

If the players actually cared about the public, they would have agreed to a deal, or at least an extension instead of walking away from the bargaining table. Both are much more effective means of ensuring football continues than going through the courts.

[rbaloha1]

No, the players also do not care about the public. Both sides in the negotiation are solely interested in getting the best deal for them, if their interests align along with the public or against it that is purely accidental.

If the players actually cared about the public, they would have agreed to a deal, or at least an extension instead of walking away from the bargaining table. Both are much more effective means of ensuring football continues than going through the courts.

What extension? According to MM no legitimate offer was offered. How else do you deal with greedy billionaires? Keep buying league propaganda. The players shall win in court ultimately leading to a better working agreement.

[mraynrand]

What extension? According to MM no legitimate offer was offered. How else do you deal with greedy billionaires? Keep buying league propaganda. The players shall win in court ultimately leading to a better working agreement.


You seem to like painting with one brush. Are all owners 'greedy?' Are any players 'greedy?' Define greedy in absolute terms. Define greedy in terms of the current situation.

[Lurker64]

What extension? According to MM no legitimate offer was offered. How else do you deal with greedy billionaires? Keep buying league propaganda. The players shall win in court ultimately leading to a better working agreement.

DeMaurice Smith came out and said last Friday that "we will not agree to an extension unless [specific financial data] is offered to us." How is saying "the NFLPA was unwilling to agree to an extension" in any way buying into anybody's propaganda? Why would he say this if there was no extension offered?

The players, like the owners, are simply trying to get the best deal for themselves everything else be damned.

[rbaloha1]

You seem to like painting with one brush. Are all owners 'greedy?' Are any players 'greedy?' Define greedy in absolute terms. Define greedy in terms of the current situation.

Lets go with your definition since its impossible to know all 32 owners. My term usage comes from the puppet representing the owners.

[Bretsky]

Link?


Listen to the NFL network on Sirius Radio channel 124
you get way more good info than these stupid articles

[Bretsky]

Here is the Murphy interview from Florio on PFT Live:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/mark-murphy-interview-transcript/




not the one I heard but interesting to hear this one also

[Bretsky]

This is interesting. For some reason I trust Mark Murphy more than Jones or Richardson.


he was very sincere and I learned from listening to him as he discussed how he's worked from all angles

I am completely convinced the players walked away because they thought they could do better through litigation

[MJZiggy]

he was very sincere and I learned from listening to him as he discussed how he's worked from all angles

I am completely convinced the players walked away because they thought they could do better through litigation
They might be able to. It might have been in their best interest. However I also buy the show-me-the-money angle. It's hard to negotiate from a position of good faith if you don't know what position you're bargaining from. And after what the league pulled with the $4 billion (with a b) tv deal that they tried to keep hidden, I don't know that I'd trust their 3rd party offer either.

[rbaloha1]

he was very sincere and I learned from listening to him as he discussed how he's worked from all angles

I am completely convinced the players walked away because they thought they could do better through litigation

Off course they did. How else do you negotiate with arrogant owners when the law is on your side? Both parties followed through on their threats.

[mraynrand]

Off course they did. How else do you negotiate with arrogant owners when the law is on your side?

typically, you make a counter-offer.

[rbaloha1]

typically, you make a counter-offer.

The owners never offered anything. They only wanted to continue negotiations wishfully hoping the players caved-in. No way Jose.

[mraynrand]

The owners never offered anything. They only wanted to continue negotiations wishfully hoping the players caved-in. No way Jose.

That's news to me

[rbaloha1]

That's news to me

“The proposal we made was not a full collective bargaining agreement,” Murphy said. “It was the basis for future discussions.”

[RashanGary]

typically, you make a counter-offer.

Kind of difficult when the infomration you need to make an offer is kept from you.

[RashanGary]

The NFLPA has been reasonable since day one. If it's 16 games, they're not taking less than we previously agreed on. If it's 18 games, they're getting paid more. If you have good reason otherwise, lets open the books and come to a fair deal. The owners have been completely unwilling to do what it takes to work out a fair deal. As far as a counter proposal, there is no way to counter prosose when you don't even know what the pie looks like.

In summary, once the books are open, a good fair deal can be worked out. If the owners don't want to do that, they really don't want to make a deal and everything else they do is just public posturing and really just insulting to the players association.

If I'm the players association, I'd say, "we want teh same deal we just opted out of, it's proportional equivelant if we go to 18 games or open the books so we can work out a fair deal. Until you're willing to do that, don't call." And I'd drag this out till the end of forever and make the owners miss a season while promising benefits to the players who are doing this because they're losing money to advance the future players cause.

In the words of Demaurice Smith, "This is happening." The owners made sure of it.

[vince]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M60rLoCbbo

[sharpe1027]

I'm confused. I thought the lockout could only be enacted against the union. So there is a lockout of individual players? Based on what? There is that lawsuit, but I thought not all players are named on it. What justification is there for a lockout by owners of individual players with which they have a contract?

It is a class action, the named players are supposed to be representative of all the players.

As to the justification. The justification for the lawsuit is probably that all of the owners are colluding to depress the wages of workers by refusing to honor each of their individual contracts for the purpose of artificially suppressing their wages. The argument is that the owners are not acting as competitive businesses and are instead working together in an anticompetitive fashion.

[mraynrand]

Oh, it's class action. The second part I get - but it didn't make sense if the players weren't either bargaining together or suing together.

[Lurker64]

"we want teh same deal we just opted out of, it's proportional equivelant if we go to 18 games or open the books so we can work out a fair deal. Until you're willing to do that, don't call."

Considering that the president of the players association, Kevin Mawae, was on record saying that the old CBA was unbalanced in favor of the players... "the same deal" was never going to be on the table from the perspective of the owners. A fair deal, yes, a deal in favor of the players? Absolutely not.

The fact that the Players Association was hammering on the "open your books" line for two years and when they were offered financial information they turned it down (not saying "we'd like more but we'll look at that", literally said "no thanks") means that "open your books" was never actually a serious request. The NFLPA likely just wanted to be able to throw whatever they found back at the owners to create leverage in the court of public opinion, meager profits for billion dollar businesses would seem excessive to the innumerate layperson.

[mraynrand]

Good use of innumerate

[SkinBasket]

“The proposal we made was not a full collective bargaining agreement,” Murphy said. “It was the basis for future discussions.”

Your understanding of negotiations, proposals, and agreements is amazingly dunce-like.

[mraynrand]

Your understanding of negotiations, proposals, and agreements is amazingly dunce-like.

I decided to let this stuff go. Put these guys on your ignore list and move on - you only see their bizarre comments in a response, and overall you waste less of your time scrolling through. Then rbahole can talk slavery all he wants to himself.

[rbaloha1]

Your understanding of negotiations, proposals, and agreements is amazingly dunce-like.

I shall wear the dunce cap with great pride. I guess talking points are a proposal that can be presented to the rank and file for a vote -- my bad.

[rbaloha1]

I decided to let this stuff go. Put these guys on your ignore list and move on - you only see their bizarre comments in a response, and overall you waste less of your time scrolling through. Then rbahole can talk slavery all he wants to himself.

Were your ancestors slave masters?

[SkinBasket]

my bad.

I believe the proper structure is, "I'm bad." As in, "I'm bad at this thinking thing."

[Tarlam!]

I decided to let this stuff go. Put these guys on your ignore list and move on - you only see their bizarre comments in a response, and overall you waste less of your time scrolling through. Then rbahole can talk slavery all he wants to himself.

I disagree with his positions, but he isn't personally attacking any posters. This is a discussion board; what's the point of only reading posters you agree with?

[Lurker64]

I guess talking points are a proposal that can be presented to the rank and file for a vote -- my bad.

Have you ever looked at an actual NFL CBA? They're roughly 350 pages long. It's not something you draft overnight in order to submit to the other guys in hopes they agree to it.

The way these things work is that sides discuss the framework of an agreement, and when all points of contention are agreed to in principle, the CBA is written collectively by a pack of lawyers from both sides.

You propose a framework not a complete document, in order to give the other side something to think about and to receive their counteroffer.

[Tarlam!]

I disagree with his positions, but he isn't personally attacking any posters. This is a discussion board; what's the point of only reading posters you agree with?

Guess I'm on Rand's ignore list. :(

[rbaloha1]

Have you ever looked at an actual NFL CBA? They're roughly 350 pages long. It's not something you draft overnight in order to submit to the other guys in hopes they agree to it.

The way these things work is that sides discuss the framework of an agreement, and when all points of contention are agreed to in principle, the CBA is written collectively by a pack of lawyers from both sides.

You propose a framework not a complete document, in order to give the other side something to think about and to receive their counteroffer.

What?

[Lurker64]

What?

A collective bargaining agreement is not something you offer. A CBA is hundreds of pages long and takes days if not weeks to write. In negotiations, particularly against a deadline, you don't submit a complete agreement. You submit the framework for an agreement, and if the other side agrees with your framework then the two sides, together, write the final document. Once an agreement is reached, in principle, the deadline is irrelevant.

[RashanGary]

The fact that the Players Association was hammering on the "open your books" line for two years and when they were offered financial information they turned it down (not saying "we'd like more but we'll look at that", literally said "no thanks") means that "open your books" was never actually a serious request. The NFLPA likely just wanted to be able to throw whatever they found back at the owners to create leverage in the court of public opinion, meager profits for billion dollar businesses would seem excessive to the innumerate layperson.

They don't want to see numbers that have no real meaning. They want to see where the numbers came from so they can confirm everything is accurate.

You're probably the most decent of the pro owner group. You're right, if the players really didn't care to see the books opened, I agree with you.

I think, to the players, taking any type of pay cut from the last agreement is going to require opening the books so they can agree profits really were dwindling and make a solid decision. Getting incomplete numbers thrown at them insults their intelligence and they refuse to even talk on that term.

You think the info the NFL owners gave the players is legit. I think the PA sees it as an insult to not see the books open. That's were we disagree. I'm fine with that and I'll be fine if I'm wrong.

[Smidgeon]

They don't want to see numbers that have no real meaning. They want to see where the numbers came from so they can confirm everything is accurate.

Are you sure about that? I thought they turned down information audited by a third party. Wouldn't that also provide accurate information without divulging the unnecessary?

[RashanGary]

Are you sure about that? I thought they turned down information audited by a third party. Wouldn't that also provide accurate information without divulging the unnecessary?

I've seen it written that the numbers they turned down were audited by a 3rd party, but not in a way that any any real meaning what-so-ever. The last time teh NFL tried to give numbers like that, when the books were opened, they were exposed as liars. Well, more "not-truth-tellers" than liars, but dishonest none the less in a way that would get them more money. The NFLPA is having none of it.

If people don't believe their real goal is to see the numbers so they can work a fair deal, then why go through with this? That's exactly what is going to happen in court.

The NFLPA is dead set on seeing the numbers before they negotiate. They'll do it one way or the other. The Owners, by not opening the books, chose court. If they did it the other way, they'd be at the table getting the final details to a sweet 18 game season ironed out.

[pbmax]

Considering that the president of the players association, Kevin Mawae, was on record saying that the old CBA was unbalanced in favor of the players... "the same deal" was never going to be on the table from the perspective of the owners. A fair deal, yes, a deal in favor of the players? Absolutely not.

The fact that the Players Association was hammering on the "open your books" line for two years and when they were offered financial information they turned it down (not saying "we'd like more but we'll look at that", literally said "no thanks") means that "open your books" was never actually a serious request. The NFLPA likely just wanted to be able to throw whatever they found back at the owners to create leverage in the court of public opinion, meager profits for billion dollar businesses would seem excessive to the innumerate layperson.

Link with that Mawae quote?

[pbmax]

Are you sure about that? I thought they turned down information audited by a third party. Wouldn't that also provide accurate information without divulging the unnecessary?

All the owner's books are already audited. So anything you read about audited books or numbers (or auditing by a third party) signifies nothing other than these are the numbers we and our accountants officially and legally stand by. Like the line from Frank Burns in M*A*S*H about how his buried fortune is detailed in the red ledger he has frozen with the pot roast in the freezer, not the blue ledger he shows the government.

The real questions are length of time (10 years versus 5) and level of detail. An audited financial statement is very useful and telling, however, if you suspect duplicity (and it has happened before) then those numbers in the statements can be confirmed only by a look at the actual books, which detail the items that make up specific categories in the statements.

Make no mistake about it, the players are asking the owners to basically reveal their last colonoscopy video. But when the players talk about trust, ignore Silver, King and all the rest, ignore all talk about Jerry Jones banging his fists together like a monkey and understand what the players mean is that they do not trust the owners to reveal the true financial state of their franchise. Franchises have tried to bury profit before, in both football and baseball, in cases where they were negotiating with a Union.

The owner's have a vested interest in not showing their fiscal hand too early if it can't be avoided completely. Because that will make the Union dig in at certain numbers. If the two parties were closer, it might be more likely that the owners would open the books with an agreement that if the numbers were verified, a predetermined player cost percentage would be set.

[Bretsky]

YO..........PB called upon you to make the next draft pick as a FYI

[Smidgeon]

Something to consider from Vic (again):

"In reference to your response to Andi, could you explain how the money for the jersey gets split between the players vs. the team? This could enlighten everyone on why the last CBA was such a bad deal for the teams.

Vic: I’ll give you a simpler example of how the money was split and applied, according to the CBA that just expired. We did an “Ask Vic” golf tournament in Jacksonville. It was purely a for-fun event; one year we somehow and mistakenly were left with a nine-dollar profit, which we put into the next year’s tournament in the way of prize money. For the first several tournaments, golfers sent us a check and then we cut a check to the golf course. After the CBA of 2006, however, when the league went to a Total Football Revenue (TFR) model, we had to make sure we didn’t touch any of the money. From that point on, the golfers had to pay the golf course directly. Why? Because if they had paid us, 60 percent of the money they sent us would’ve gone to the players off the top, leaving us with 40 percent of that money to pay 100 percent of the costs. That’s not a good formula for doing business. I think you can easily see that we would’ve had to build in some serious margins just to break even."

[swede]

...From that point on, the golfers had to pay the golf course directly. Why? Because if they had paid us, 60 percent of the money they sent us would’ve gone to the players off the top, leaving us with 40 percent of that money to pay 100 percent of the costs. Thats not a good formula for doing business. I think you can easily see that we woulve had to build in some serious margins just to break even."

You may have to help out some of the nflpa lovers here. What exactly are costs? jk

[RashanGary]

So if they're going to do a charity, they have to do it in a way that doesn't count toward revenue? Big whoop. Same outcome, different way of doing it. Don't let some pro-owner paint it as the players taking charity money while the owners cover the costs, haha. They said right out, they change the way the collect so that doesn't happen. Read guys, just read and it wouldn't all be a shock to you.

And if that type of setup is their big beef, just open up the books and agree to a new method or go to court.


This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out. The courts will settle what is fair and that will be that. The owners are fine with being in court or they woudln't be there. The players are fine being in court or they wouldn't be there. There is too much money to not have a season. This is overblown drama. My money is on everything working out.

[ThunderDan]

So if they're going to do a charity, they have to do it in a way that doesn't count toward revenue? Big whoop. Same outcome, different way of doing it. Don't let some pro-owner paint it as the players taking charity money while the owners cover the costs, haha. They said right out, they change the way the collect so that doesn't happen. Read guys, just read and it wouldn't all be a shock to you.

And if that type of setup is their big beef, just open up the books and agree to a new method or go to court.


This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out. The courts will settle what is fair and that will be that. The owners are fine with being in court or they woudln't be there. The players are fine being in court or they wouldn't be there. There is too much money to not have a season. This is overblown drama. My money is on everything working out.

Both sides don't want the courts to rule on this. They want a ruling on the lockout and that is all. Which ever side "wins" with the judges ruling will have more leverage in the negotiation that's all.

[ThunderDan]

Something to consider from Vic (again):

"In reference to your response to Andi, could you explain how the money for the jersey gets split between the players vs. the team? This could enlighten everyone on why the last CBA was such a bad deal for the teams.

Vic: I’ll give you a simpler example of how the money was split and applied, according to the CBA that just expired. We did an “Ask Vic” golf tournament in Jacksonville. It was purely a for-fun event; one year we somehow and mistakenly were left with a nine-dollar profit, which we put into the next year’s tournament in the way of prize money. For the first several tournaments, golfers sent us a check and then we cut a check to the golf course. After the CBA of 2006, however, when the league went to a Total Football Revenue (TFR) model, we had to make sure we didn’t touch any of the money. From that point on, the golfers had to pay the golf course directly. Why? Because if they had paid us, 60 percent of the money they sent us would’ve gone to the players off the top, leaving us with 40 percent of that money to pay 100 percent of the costs. That’s not a good formula for doing business. I think you can easily see that we would’ve had to build in some serious margins just to break even."

To bring this up is so silly.

I am sure the players have absolutely no objection to the charity events. It was probably a mis-"do" by the lawyers in the agreed upon CBA document they signed.

This quote is specifically intended to make the players look bad. What it really shows is that the lawyers f*cked up!

[RashanGary]

To bring this up is so silly.

I am sure the players have absolutely no objection to the charity events. It was probably a mis-"do" by the lawyers in the agreed upon CBA document they signed.

This quote is specifically intended to make the players look bad. What it really shows is that the lawyers f*cked up!

And if you really read it, the players aren't taking money while the owners cover costs. They just have to change the way money is transferred so it doesn't get treated as revenue.

This is why I'm not a fan of the owners. They spill this misinformation in ways that confuses the people here and probably everywhere else too. You guys are being played. Wake up. Read. Understand.

[RashanGary]

Both sides don't want the courts to rule on this. They want a ruling on the lockout and that is all. Which ever side "wins" with the judges ruling will have more leverage in the negotiation that's all.

That's the first step. My understanding is if they rule against the lockout they'll have to play the season while a long term agreement is worked out in court. Teh way I read it, the players had a small window to walk away from teh bargaining table so they could set this up. If they had not walked away, the owners would have had all the leverage. Everything the players have done has showed a very strong want to do this in the court room. Going off past history, they're making the right move.

[SkinBasket]

To bring this up is so silly.

It's not really that silly, and despite JH's blustering, this was an nothing more than an example of the business formula that the last CBA established. The example, by definition, illustrates how the entire model - not just this example - was a disaster of a successful business model. As owners, it's their job to make the business successful. That means making money.

The example wasn't proffered to make the players look bad. Only a simpleton trying too hard to find something that isn't there would come to that conclusion. The example was presented to illustrate for people without a deep understanding of the both the micros and macros of the TFR model how the system was not a sustainable business model for any business looking for continued and, god forbid, furthered economic success.

[Smidgeon]

And if you really read it, the players aren't taking money while the owners cover costs. They just have to change the way money is transferred so it doesn't get treated as revenue.

This is why I'm not a fan of the owners. They spill this misinformation in ways that confuses the people here and probably everywhere else too. You guys are being played. Wake up. Read. Understand.

Well, this particular piece isn't "owners...spill[ing] this misinformation". It's a former reporter for the Jaguars (who now works for the Packers) explaining how the process changed with the 2006 CBA extension.

[Smidgeon]

Here's something else I read about the available financials. If someone else posted this or commented on it, I apologize for not seeing it:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Show-us-more-of-your-books.html

[Patler]

It's not really that silly, and despite JH's blustering, this was an nothing more than an example of the business formula that the last CBA established. The example, by definition, illustrates how the entire model - not just this example - was a disaster of a successful business model. As owners, it's their job to make the business successful. That means making money.

The example wasn't proffered to make the players look bad. Only a simpleton trying too hard to find something that isn't there would come to that conclusion. The example was presented to illustrate for people without a deep understanding of the both the micros and macros of the TFR model how the system was not a sustainable business model for any business looking for continued and, god forbid, furthered economic success.


Well, this particular piece isn't "owners...spill[ing] this misinformation". It's a former reporter for the Jaguars (who now works for the Packers) explaining how the process changed with the 2006 CBA extension.

Exactly. It changes the way they have to do business, and in some instances, that might be detrimental. In his example, (which I think was a poor one BECAUSE it was so simple) the last thing you want to do for a charitable event (was this even a charitable event? Maybe not.) is make it more complicated for the guests. For example, if the change requires the guests to send two checks instead of one (one to the golf course, another for the event itself) that will discourage some. If they have a tie to you, but no tie to the venue, they want to deal with you, not the venue. Then, of course it puts an added burden on the golf course, who will have to process a bunch of checks instead of one. Again, as the sponsor you want to simplify, not complicate the matter for those who work with you.

This one certainly isn't a big deal, but it is an indication of what can be a more difficult problem. He would have been better off answering the question the reader asked about jersey sales, instead of using his golf tournament example.

BTW - so far this guy (Ketchman) isn't very impressive or entertaining, in my opinion. I think I will start a thread to discuss our initial opinions of him.

[RashanGary]

The owners, commissioner and NFL employees who want to have a job or maybe get a new one in the future are all going to hum the same tune.

The players want the itemized data.


Just take it to court. Let the NFL bitch and whine all the way, but take it straight to court.

[red]

the one thing that we should all take away from this is that we "the fans" piss away WAY to much money on this sport. not only through buy tickets and and buying jersies and shit but also by our cities and states giving up so much for these assholes to build their stadiums when the money could be better spent on schools and infrastructure


its becoming tougher and tougher to give a shit about either side in this matter

[RashanGary]

The example was presented to illustrate for people without a deep understanding of the both the micros and macros of the TFR model how the system was not a sustainable business model for any business looking for continued and, god forbid, furthered economic success.

It showed that they had to work around the current definition of revenue in some situations.

I don't see, not in the slightest, how that example showed their hindered financial success.

This is a pain in the ass detail painted as them losing money. They didn't lose any more money this way than the old way. Had they done it the same they wyoudl have, but they're not retarded. The adjusted and made it happen with no economic loss at all. Not even a penny. But to Patlers, point, obviously they should get that detail fixed. It's more frustrating than costly.

[RashanGary]

And I'm sure adjusting charitable cash flow to being a non revenue impacting process is the least of the players worries. I'm pretty sure they want to see the books so they know what they're negotiating on.

The owners are sending out, "oh, poor us, pity us" statements that sound like they're losing money, but when you read it they didn't lose even a penny.

[Patler]

Brandt seems to suggest that players have been given the information they want collectively for the league, but they want it detailed individually by team. Don't know how accurate that is.

[RashanGary]

Even skinbasket who writes like has a high level of intelligence is confused by this. How did they lose money in that situation? Yeah, you said it but you can't explain it at all. You're just confused.

[RashanGary]

Brandt seems to suggest that players have been given the information they want collectively for the league, but they want it detailed individually by team. Don't know how accurate that is.

That's not what I read. I read that teh teams had audited information in lump sum type numbers that the players cannot break down to see if there are hidden profits. For example, an owner paying himself 10M and writing it off as an expense rather than profit would be an example. It happened in 1992. They were caught doing exactly that. The players want to see detailed information not lump sum costs, salaries, etc. . .

[Patler]

My understanding is if they rule against the lockout they'll have to play the season while a long term agreement is worked out in court.

I think you are expecting much more from the court than will really happen. In the end, the parties will still have to work out the details of a new CBA. The judge will only alter the incentives of the parties by ruling on certain legal issues.

[RashanGary]

Well, not exactly. The NFLPA has had access to financial records of the league through direct and specific language from the current CBA. It is league-wide data, not detailed line items of each team, but it is significant and extensive.

The players want each line detailed so they don't count that 10,000,000 profit as an operating expense the way the audited information would suggest.

Even the most pro-owner poster would have to agree that it would be idiotic for the players to go off of numbers that have holes in them; holes that have been used by the very same owners to deceive you already. Clearly getting the full financial information is a benefit. Are we really talking about this like it's a question?

[RashanGary]

I think you are expecting much more from the court than will really happen. In the end, the parties will still have to work out the details of a new CBA. The judge will only alter the incentives of the parties by ruling on certain legal issues.

Like how much financial transparency is required. The players want to use the courts.

[Patler]

That's not what I read. I read that teh teams had audited information in lump sum type numbers that the players cannot break down to see if there are hidden profits. For example, an owner paying himself 10M and writing it off as an expense rather than profit would be an example. It happened in 1992. They were caught doing exactly that. The players want to see detailed information not lump sum costs, salaries, etc. . .

I have no idea what you read or where you read it. To be honest, I don't much care. Its probably just more pro-player propoganda published with the intent to confuse. As someone once wrote:
"This is why I'm not a fan of the [[owner]] players. They spill this misinformation in ways that confuses the people here and probably everywhere else too. You are being played. Wake up. Read. Understand."

:lol::lol::lol:

[RashanGary]

I posted Brandts exact line a couple posts up, Patler. He said it was NOT broken out line by line and unless you haven't read anything on this issue previous, you'd know listing profits as expenses and hiding them in the lump sum data was a proven tactic the owners have used in the past.

sighting a post where I was clearly opposing the pro-owner sentiment here doesn't change the facts taht you either forgot to aknowledge or misunderstood.

[RashanGary]

Do you agree that listing profits as expenses was something the owners were caught doing in 1992 by showing lump sum audited data rather than broken out full financial records?

Do you agree that the owners offering the same type of data leaves open the possibility that again they could be doing similar number manipulation?

Do you agree that Andrew Brandt said in his article that the information they were offered was not broken out line by line?

Do you agree that DeMaurice Smith and the players have been asking all along for the FULL financial data but have not received it?

Do you agree that the court mandated the NFL to open the books in 1992?



If you answer those questions with any type of intellectual honesty, you will understand why this is going to court. If not, well let it surprise you.

[MadtownPacker]

Do YOU always go off the fucking deep end and act like a fucking maniac? Just curious cuz I having been fighting the urge to attack you lately JH.

Please forgive, I just need a victim.

[RashanGary]

I think I have good points, but yeah, my delivery is awful.

[Patler]

I posted Brandts exact line a couple posts up, Patler. He said it was NOT broken out line by line and unless you haven't read anything on this issue previous, you'd know listing profits as expenses and hiding them in the lump sum data was a proven tactic the owners have used in the past.

sighting a post where I was clearly opposing the pro-owner sentiment here doesn't change the facts taht you either forgot to aknowledge or misunderstood.


Apparently my tongue in cheek post was not fully appreciated. You are completely missing the point. whenever you start believing all of what comes from one side and nothing of what comes from the other, you are in big trouble for understanding the issues. Both sides are spouting full rations of crap in an effort to win over the fans. Both sides are couching the issues and facts in the best light for them.

The owners have probably not given as much as they suggest, but also probably more than the players imply. The players likely need more than what they have, but less than they have asked for.

Now what is it that you think I "forgot to aknowledge or misunderstood."?

[Patler]

Do you agree that listing profits as expenses was something the owners were caught doing in 1992 by showing lump sum audited data rather than broken out full financial records?

I really do not know, as I have no access to primary data on this matter. All I have is anecdotal information and heresay.


Do you agree that the owners offering the same type of data leaves open the possibility that again they could be doing similar number manipulation?

The same type of data as what?



Do you agree that Andrew Brandt said in his article that the information they were offered was not broken out line by line?

No, I do not agree completely. What he wrote was:


"Well, not exactly. The NFLPA has had access to financial records of the league through direct and specific language from the current CBA. It is league-wide data, not detailed line items of each team, but it is significant and extensive." (emphasis original)I believe the meaning is somewhat different than your recent rants imply.



Do you agree that DeMaurice Smith and the players have been asking all along for the FULL financial data but have not received it?

I can't answer that because I don't know what they were offered. I have not seen it, and reportedly neither has the NFLPA because they refused to even look at what they were offered. Who's to say that the NFLPA wasn't demanding more than they really needed, or that the owners didn't offer enough for the purpose? Certainly neither you nor I can answer that question, since we have no primary information about it



Do you agree that the court mandated the NFL to open the books in 1992?

Again, I really do not know, as I have no access to primary data on this matter. All I have is anecdotal information and heresay. I suppose I could dredge up the court orders, but I really have no interest in that.




If you answer those questions with any type of intellectual honesty, you will understand why this is going to court. If not, well let it surprise you.

I understand fully why this is going to court. I question whether you fully understand it however. I think you have a rather one-sided impression of it, but I'm not sure it is the most accurate.

[RashanGary]

I don't think the players have anything to hide or lie about. I think they want the truth out there a fair deal can be worked out. I do think the owners have things to hide, just like they did 20 years ago and to keep it hidden, I think they are being much more manipulative. History already proves them to be dishonest in these types of labor agreements. The courts have already set precedence on what they want shown during the last court assisted labor negotiation. To quote woodbuck here, "Peppers was just throwing Favre under the bus." With that in mind, a note to you, sometimes relativity just sounds silly.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out. My guess is since the last CBA several owners have been hiding profits from the CBA pot and they want that hidden from this agreement.

And the big deceit the 1700 players are all keeping from us? Common sense says they just want to see the full financial data so they're not being deceived again. If there was some big motive, I think we all know those bone heads would have spilled it by now. Maybe Demaurice Smith is fooling the players and has some big conspiracy up hsi sleeve where he gets rich at the expense of everyone, bwa ha ha. . . Too tricky, highly doubtful, but maybe. I'll give it a 10% chance. MOre likely he just wants to do a good job so he can get some of the best work in our country after this high profile negotiation.

I think you're reaching here, Patler. To me, you sound like the Favre fans saying both sides need to apologize for Favre's bizarre actions. It's not always right in the middle. My judgment says the players are being far more direct in this one. My interpretation of the best available evidence points to it, I think it's obvious and clear, but we'll see. You can disregard all evidence like you did above by saying who knows what is fact, who knows what happened for sure. That's exactly what the Favre crowd still does. I see it as a last ditch effort to hang on to a shattered set of opinions.

[Patler]

Big difference between the personal matter of Favre and the strictly business negotiations of the owners and union. The lawyers on staff for the union are just as cold and calculating as the lawyers for the owners. For all the Jones and other owners you don't like, there is a Rooney who is loved by players and employees. As a group they are probably something inbetween. I doubt the Rooneys of the group would allow them to be as outright dishonest as you have implied.

Comparing now to 1992 is comparing apples to oranges. You have to look at where the parties were in 1992 and where they are now. Before 1992 there was no salary cap, nothing tied to revenues, and the owners shared little to no financial information with the players. There wasn't even a union in 1992, just an association as the union was still de-certified to pursue the antitrust litigation. Fast forward to 2010, the cap has been around since 1994, with the amount tied to revenues. As a result, for nearly 20 years there have been annual exchanges of financial data. It was easy for owners to hide information in 1992 because there was no annual vetting. Don't kid yourself, the NFLPA has had highly paid consultants digging into the owners data that has been required each year. Hiding significant money is more difficult. Have some owners pushed the limits? I guarantee it. But I doubt there are amounts significant to the cap. Oh, if the players find any (I should say "when" they find some, because they will) they will rant and rave about it and make it SOUND like a big deal, but it won't be.

Since the owners served notice of reopening the CBA, the players planned a strategy that included antitrust litigation, and not just to get better financial information. There is no other reasonable explanation for their refusal to even look at what the owners offered.

They want the anti-trust litigation for much more than just knowing how much Jerry Jones pays himself.

Don't take it wrong, I'm not saying the players are evil because of it. They just have higher goals than you give them credit for. Too much expense and too much risk just to get some increment of greater detail than they currently receive or were offered.

[MJZiggy]

All I know is that SOMEONE needs to give Nick Barnett something more to do. TOO MUCH INFORMATION, BRO!!!!

[SkinBasket]

Even skinbasket who writes like has a high level of intelligence is confused by this. How did they lose money in that situation? Yeah, you said it but you can't explain it at all. You're just confused.

I'm not confused. As usual, you make more assumptions than factual points, then demand the other person defend themselves against your imagined genius.

It was an example of... ah fuck it, you're obviously not going to make an actual effort to understand what an "example" is, much less how it relates to the issue on a broader scale, so what's the point? You'll just go hold the sign like you're supposed to.

[Lurker64]

Florio writes at length on something that's been bothering me here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/30/in-a-way-players-are-trying-to-have-it-both-ways/

If a tactic is available to both sides, it's troublingly asymmetrical that one side has no legal means to block that tactic while the other side does. Lockouts and strikes are legitimate, and as long as one is a valid tactic the other should be as well.

[Guiness]

Big difference between the personal matter of Favre and the strictly business negotiations of the owners and union. The lawyers on staff for the union are just as cold and calculating as the lawyers for the owners. For all the Jones and other owners you don't like, there is a Rooney who is loved by players and employees. As a group they are probably something inbetween. I doubt the Rooneys of the group would allow them to be as outright dishonest as you have implied.

Comparing now to 1992 is comparing apples to oranges. You have to look at where the parties were in 1992 and where they are now. Before 1992 there was no salary cap, nothing tied to revenues, and the owners shared little to no financial information with the players. There wasn't even a union in 1992, just an association as the union was still de-certified to pursue the antitrust litigation. Fast forward to 2010, the cap has been around since 1994, with the amount tied to revenues. As a result, for nearly 20 years there have been annual exchanges of financial data. It was easy for owners to hide information in 1992 because there was no annual vetting. Don't kid yourself, the NFLPA has had highly paid consultants digging into the owners data that has been required each year. Hiding significant money is more difficult. Have some owners pushed the limits? I guarantee it. But I doubt there are amounts significant to the cap. Oh, if the players find any (I should say "when" they find some, because they will) they will rant and rave about it and make it SOUND like a big deal, but it won't be.

Since the owners served notice of reopening the CBA, the players planned a strategy that included antitrust litigation, and not just to get better financial information. There is no other reasonable explanation for their refusal to even look at what the owners offered.

They want the anti-trust litigation for much more than just knowing how much Jerry Jones pays himself.

Don't take it wrong, I'm not saying the players are evil because of it. They just have higher goals than you give them credit for. Too much expense and too much risk just to get some increment of greater detail than they currently receive or were offered.

You've mentioned this ulterior motive the players have before, and I'm still trying to read between the lines - and figure out if there's something there, or you're a conspiracy theorist!

I don't see what it could be. The only thing that I can come up with, that's big enough to cause all this trouble over, is that they want to get a ruling by the courts to break the league, and set something up where the players become part owners. The NFL co-operative!

[SkinBasket]

Florio writes at length on something that's been bothering me here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/30/in-a-way-players-are-trying-to-have-it-both-ways/

If a tactic is available to both sides, it's troublingly asymmetrical that one side has no legal means to block that tactic while the other side does. Lockouts and strikes are legitimate, and as long as one is a valid tactic the other should be as well.

Ha! Welcome to the world of labor law in the U.S.

The employer is almost always bound, gagged and anal foreplay is initiated in any court, arbitration, or other dispute concerning labor before the proceedings even begin. You have legal systems and government agencies stuffed full of liberal progressives, or in the case of the NLRB, actually headed by a former union attorney, who quite literally make up whatever result they want while disregarding the law completely in some cases. Judicial activism has become the norm throughout the court system.

The employee, even when professional represented, is always granted every concession. Deadlines are waived. Procedural matters become suggestions. The evil employers, however, are regularly chastised by the court or board, default if they miss a deadline by an hour, and are expected to serve up their own head on a platter if asked.

This is no different. Unions have worked very hard for a very long time to ensure that the employee, any employee, is always at an advantage here, even when they have no legal, moral, or logical standing or backing against their employer.

[Tarlam!]

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. "Liberal" in the US of A is different than in many other parts of the world. In Oz and germany, e.g., liberal means free from government interfierence. Like, privatise EVERYTHING and let the market decide for itself. I'm a liberal under this definition.

[SkinBasket]

The progressive movement has taken over the agenda of the "liberal" political institution again here, so I guess that would be a more fitting term than liberal. That way, when people recognize that progressive policies fail, the liberal party can dump the progressive label and wait another few decades to try again.

[Tarlam!]

The progressive movement has taken over the agenda of the "liberal" political institution again here, so I guess that would be a more fitting term than liberal. That way, when people recognize that progressive policies fail, the liberal party can dump the progressive label and wait another few decades to try again.

Too high for me, J, but if you say so.....