Something I thought of

[ND72]

So as I was listening toMark Murphy talk bout the lockout being lifted I started to think....what stance do the Green Bay Packers have in this? Murphy is the figure head of the publicly owned Packers...so when players say it's what the fans want, are the Packers the first to "jump ship"? Just a thought I had.

[MadtownPacker]

I thought the players cant or wont do this cuz they are in the union? All or none? Which one of you smart mofos knows? Where is KYPack? That damn inbred hillbilly will know.

[KYPack]

I got yer inbred Hilljack right here, Fresno.

It's all a gray area right now. The judge in Minny rendered a long opinion written in such a way to end the lockout and preclude an appeal by the NFL. So the NFL is filing an appeal.

We are all sailing in uncharted waters. The teams, the league, and the players are trying to figure out a strategy. D Smith is a bomb throwing non-leader of the former NFLPA. Roger Goodell is a giant chicken with what head he had cut off, running around, not knowing what to do.

The Packers will fall in line with the rest of the NFL owners (GBP being the only team without an owner) and participate in the draft. All the rest is status quo. No trades, no games, no nothing until a compromise or the appeal in the 8th district court in St Lou is rendered.

It's all fucked up

[Tarlam!]

Roger Goodell is a giant chicken with what head he had cut off, running around, not knowing what to do.

I have learned to dislike Goodell and his heavy handedness immensely after initially quite liking him. I generally agree with your appraisal, KY, but I have to admit his piece in this week's WSJ was excellent. Very well dosed, well written and eye-opening.

Too bad that 90% of the typical football fan doesn't regularly read the Journal.

[KYPack]

I have learned to dislike Goodell and his heavy handedness immensely after initially quite liking him. I generally agree with your appraisal, KY, but I have to admit his piece in this week's WSJ was excellent. Very well dosed, well written and eye-opening.

Too bad that 90% of the typical football fan doesn't regularly read the Journal.

That was Goodell trying to scarf some positive PR for the league and himself. They both need it, in fact all sides could use some good PR, even the judge!

This whole thing has evolved. Tagliabue and Upshaw did a dance in their negotiations for years. Upshaw threatened to do what Smith did in every negotiation with Tags. Paul T would cave and the league and NFLPA would cut a deal. The last time, Upshaw cut such a good deal for the players, the owners opted out. They then hired Goodell to crack down on the players and get a better CBA. He cracked down, but the CBA ain't going so good. After Upshaw's death, Smith was hired as a war time NFLPA president. He has decertified, filed the anti-trust suit, you name it. Upshaw would rattle his saber, but Smith is firing guns.

I think Goodell is in over his head. He may prove me wrong, but the owners may be lucky to get a CBA has strong as the last one. The players and Smith are going for broke, and they just might get it. Broke, that is.

One way or the other, this thing will wind up with a new CBA.

What it looks like, only time will tell.

I think the players will get a lot of concessions in this deal.

[Lurker64]

I agree with a lot of what you say KY. I think ultimately this comes down to whether the players would rather press their advantage or settle once they've established the leverage that the owner's can't lock them out.

If they decide to settle now that they've got the leverage, they'll get a pretty good deal but I think it's one that the league can live with.

If they decide to press their advantage by following up with antitrust suits challenging... whatever, this will take years and the NFLPA may actually end up losing if the NFL treads carefully. After all, the American Needle decision specifically points out the necessity of NFL teams acting collectively to further competitive balance. As long as the NFL can convincingly make the case that things like modest free agent restrictions, franchise tags, and the draft the players may end up winning in the sense that "they can't get locked out" but they may end up ultimately losing.

Hopefully this doesn't go for five years of antitrust litigation, and the 8th circuit's decision re: lockout is just the final word at establishing leverage towards negotiating a CBA. If we negotiate a CBA this summer, both parties can save face. If we push this thing as far down the line as it will go, someone will well and truly lose and it's not necessarily the owners.

[RashanGary]

I see your point Lurker, but the Players get paid a lot of money here. The owners can't lock them out. All they have to do is keep showing up to work and get paid while the dust settles.

The odds of any court ruling that it's OK to have strings tied to their employees without an agreement seem pretty slim.

If the owners want to get really ugly, they'll get scabs, but then the NFL superstars will go to the UFL and that will damage everybody beyond belief.

It seems like every time a pro sport union goes head to head against the sport, they win.

I think the NFL should just open the books, get back to the table and work it out, but they won't and this will go a long time.

[Lurker64]

I think we're well past the point where "opening the books" would accomplish anything, even if you assume that they would have to begin with. Have you noticed how literally nobody representing the players (not Smith, not Kessler, not Mawae, etc.) has uttered any sentence involving "open" and "books" in the last couple months? That's no longer the target.

[MadScientist]

The goal for the players is always the best deal for the players. Winning the lockout battle give the players a better position, mostly by removing the huge leverage the owners have with the lockout. The leverage the players have with the threat of winning the anti-trust battle is only that it will hurt owners more than players. It is not in the players best interest to win it.

The point and use of opening the books is that it is really the only way the players will accept a less favorable deal. If your company came to you with a contract with a minimal raise and bonus because profits are down, you'd be more likely to accept without complaint if they showed you the breakdown of sales and expenses. If all you had evidence for was increased sales and no clear expense breakdown, why would you just accept that profits are down and that you should just take it?

The owners have been bitching that the last deal was bad for them. If they have clear evidence as to how it is bad for them, let them show the evidence for it and they are likely to get a deal more favorable to them.

[Tarlam!]

Well, as Lurker pointed out, the "Non-Union" isn't clammering to see the books these days.

What I find astonishing is that the judge ordered the two parties to get back and negotiate as if both parties actually represented somebody. Clearly, the owners are officially organized. Just as clearly, the players claim they are not. How can the judge, then, plausibly argue her verdict? Furthermore, with whom should the League now officially negotiate, since there is no longer a union?

So many questions. No answers.

[get louder at lambeau]

The owners have been bitching that the last deal was bad for them. If they have clear evidence as to how it is bad for them, let them show the evidence for it and they are likely to get a deal more favorable to them.

There is no such thing as clear evidence in a matter this complicated. The owners can look at their books and see one thing, while the players look at them and see something totally different. Both sides will trumpet the stuff that backs up their position.

Look at our Government, where both sides were looking at the same fucked up books. They still couldn't agree on much of anything, and the Republicans and Democrats couldn't reach an agreement until the Government was about to get shut down.

[Tarlam!]

There is no such thing as clear evidence in a matter this complicated.

Excellently observed.

I have a long history of providing McDonald's with products. They are (in)famous for there open book policy with vendors. Ideally, the industry in which your company operates has a publicized mean profit level. That is then considered "fair". They will then help your company achieve that profit while securing all the unnecessary cost is stripped. But they also make certain your company brings home the bacon. Let's say you have an R&D flat percentile on your P&L. McDonald's will want you to list where that hard dollar amount went.

It's a nerve wracking process initially; trust is a real dilemna! But after 20 years of working that way, it was just routine.

Too bad that trust hasn't been earned by the players. That's essentially what it comes down to.

[MadScientist]

Well, as Lurker pointed out, the "Non-Union" isn't clammering to see the books these days.

What I find astonishing is that the judge ordered the two parties to get back and negotiate as if both parties actually represented somebody. Clearly, the owners are officially organized. Just as clearly, the players claim they are not. How can the judge, then, plausibly argue her verdict? Furthermore, with whom should the League now officially negotiate, since there is no longer a union?

So many questions. No answers.

The judge could only order negotiations between the players involved in the lawsuit (and their counsel which includes Smith) and the league. IIRC the judge had a gag order on the negotiations, so we couldn't hear any such clamoring, unless the players wanted to piss off the judge who was their only hope.