Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/appeals-court-grants-nfls-motion-for-stay-lockout-still-on/

I am sure this one is legit. Stay granted until appeal is resolved, minimum three weeks as arguments on appeal will be heard in early June.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/report-breakthrough-in-talks/

This breakthrough report is shakier as it seems the only thing that has happened is that the owners agreed to present an offer at the request of the mediator. The report is from Sal Palantonio with his source being Carl Eller. But the breakthrough might be ephemeral as the owners have agreed to make a proposal but no one has seen it yet.

So don't let go of that bird in your hand yet. To mix a metaphor.

[pbmax]

Florio thinks the Appeals Court has tipped its hand and it looks favorable for the owners.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/16/eighth-circuit-tips-its-hand-judge-nelsons-ruling-is-in-serious-jeopardy/

[Lurker64]

Looks like the league holds pretty much all the cards now. It just comes down to whether the league decides to try to make a deal that both sides can live with now that they have the leverage, or whether they elect to try to grind the union into dust. The remaining card for the players (Judge Doty and the Lockout Fund) could give the players the ability to withstand a long lockout, or at least longer than the league would prefer, so "breaking the union" might not be an attractive option.

Though, on the other hand, whatever Doty rules the NFL can appeal that to the 8th Circuit, and the 8th Circuit appears to have the NFL's back here.

But if the decision issued today really does include the quote: “We have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits" then the players have really no chance at preventing Judge Nelson's injunction enjoining the lockout from being rescinded.

[retailguy]

I can't wait to hear if our resident Union supporter thinks the appeals court is "upholding the law" by invalidating what Judge Nelson apparently inaccurately decided.


We have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League's lockout, and accordingly conclude that the League has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.

Pretty damning statement right there. Wow.

[SkinBasket]

The league has a chance to act like grown-ups in the wake of its victory. For 66 days and counting, neither side has. Maybe Day 67 will see the stewards of the game setting aside their desire to squeeze as much money as possible out of the players and instead offer a fair deal that the players will regard as fair both now and in the future.

Gee. I wonder which side of the dispute NBC Sports is on. That has to be the most idiotic bass ackward bit of moronic thought I've seen published in the last few months. So now the owners, the employers, are taking from, nay! "squeezing!" the poor, downtrodden players by paying them billions of dollars! Ah! THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!

And as usual with the progressive-liberal folks, even when they've lost and been found to be wrong, it's always up to the "adults" (read: not them) to make a "fair" decision in the wake of the player [not]union temper tantrum. In other words, give them what they wanted anyway.

[RashanGary]

I'm sure all the judges are doing their best in these cases. Whatever happens, I'm not too invested in the result.

[RashanGary]

Isn't this all sort of expected though, were they really going to not let the 8th circuit court not hear the NFL's arguement. It seems like a bunch of business as usual, dragging through the process. I'm still thinking the players win this thing. There's certainly opposing evidence to that view, but I have my money on Demaurice.

The NFL will get their day in court. Now they just have to win.

[SkinBasket]

I'm sure all the judges are doing their best in these cases. Whatever happens, I'm not too invested in the result.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yeah, you've made that abundantly clear.

PS: I would have made more LOL faces if Joe's cocksucking faggot software didn't suck so much donkey cock.

[Patler]

Isn't this all sort of expected though, were they really going to not let the 8th circuit court not hear the NFL's arguement. It seems like a bunch of business as usual, dragging through the process. I'm still thinking the players win this thing. There's certainly opposing evidence to that view, but I have my money on Demaurice.

The NFL will get their day in court. Now they just have to win.

No, its not really just business as usual. The stay of the injunction has nothing to do with giving the NFL their day. If the court had ended the stay, or not even entered it in the first place, the arguments on appeal would have still gone on. The stay wasn't necessary for the court to hear the NFL's argument. That was certain to happen as soon as the request for appeal was accepted. The stay was a separate matter, but can be a hint at the direction the appellate court is leaning based on what is required for a stay to be entered.

[RashanGary]

We'll see. I'll stand by my thinking, the players leadership have a good idea of what they're doing. We'll see how it all shakes out. This is certainly new evidence to support the players leadership not knowing what they're doing, but I'm locked in on my original prediction and I'll either be right or wrong when it plays out. I'm fine with that. I don't know everything. I'm just right a lot ;)

[Patler]

We'll see. I'll stand by my thinking, the players leadership have a good idea of what they're doing. We'll see how it all shakes out. This is certainly new evidence to support the players leadership not knowing what they're doing, but I'm locked in on my original prediction and I'll either be right or wrong when it plays out. I'm fine with that. I don't know everything. I'm just right a lot ;)

I don't look at it as one side knowing what they are doing and the other side not knowing what they are doing based on a court ruling on a specific issue. The decisions on these issues will be much closer than that, as evidenced by the 2-1 split of the appellate panel on the ruling supporting the stay. Even the justices were not unanimous on which side was right. That tells me that both sides had credible arguments worthy of pursuing. Whether any of us is right or wrong in predicting the outcome isn't much, since we basically have a 50-50 chance of being right.

[Scott Campbell]

Even in defeat, De Smith rolls out the rhetoric

Posted by Mike Florio on May 16, 2011, 11:22 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/desmithmay16getty-e1305602555214.jpg?w=250 Getty ImagesIn response to the recent remarks of NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith comparing the labor dispute to a mob war, we suggested that Smith dial back the rhetoric (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/14/nflpa-needs-to-exercise-some-restraint-in-its-rhetoric/). But now, even with his effort to lift the lockout on the verge of sleeping with the fishes, Smith continues to talk tough.
“It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,” Smith told reporters after Monday’s ruling. “Congratulations.”

We’re not sure what that means.
The league hasn’t sued anyone. The league wants to impose economic pressure on the players via a lockout, and the players decertified and filed an antitrust lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the lockout. Today’s ruling that the lockout won’t be lifted pending resolution of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit hardly represents the NFL suing to not plays its game.
With a reversal of Judge Nelson’s ruling now looming, Smith’s comments likely have less to do with shaping public opinion and more to do with scrambling to keep the players unified, even if doing so requires Smith to distort the facts in the hopes of playing to the players’ emotions.
The problem is that, while such comments may be help keep the players on the same page, they’ll make it harder for the players and the league to ever make it into the same library again.

[Patler]

Kind of a peculiar comment from Smith, when one considers that NFL player strikes in the past caused lost time, lost games and games to be played by replacement players; and the NHL owners lockout resulted in an entire season to be cancelled.

[Smeefers]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?

[Scott Campbell]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?

I think they de-certified and became a trade association. Just a legal maneuver.

[mraynrand]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?


You understand plenty. I remember there was a peasant in the Sudetenland who asked the same thing about Konrad Henlein when they decertified.

[SkinBasket]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?

I wouldn't think it would help their position in their argument before the NLRB that the players were not negotiating in good faith and the decertification was a sham. But Smith doesn't seem so good with the subtlety of things does he? I'm sure there's nothing illegal about it, as an association probably has the right to be represented by whomever it chooses, but yeah, the impression it gives isn't very convincing.

[retailguy]

I wouldn't think it would help their position in their argument before the NLRB that the players were not negotiating in good faith and the decertification was a sham. But Smith doesn't seem so good with the subtlety of things does he? I'm sure there's nothing illegal about it, as an association probably has the right to be represented by whomever it chooses, but yeah, the impression it gives isn't very convincing.

I think this issue is the union's biggest problem right now. On the surface (and under it too), it looks like gamesmanship because it is that. Their actions show that they really weren't "negotiating in good faith" because if they didn't get what they wanted they'd just try it a different way.

I'm not saying that the NFL is behaving like Mother Teresa either, however, but at the 11th hour, they were trying to negotiate with alternate proposals. I don't recall one counter offer of substance from the Union. It seems that all along, it was either, meet our demands or we'll decertify and get the courts to give us what we want.

If it weren't for this, I think the majority of the fans would be united behind the players. While they aren't "little guys" by normal standards, compared to the owners they are, and America tends to lean that way, unless there is a compelling reason. Decertification gave it to us, I guess.

[Bossman641]

Even in defeat, De Smith rolls out the rhetoric

Posted by Mike Florio on May 16, 2011, 11:22 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/desmithmay16getty-e1305602555214.jpg?w=250 Getty ImagesIn response to the recent remarks of NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith comparing the labor dispute to a mob war, we suggested that Smith dial back the rhetoric (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/14/nflpa-needs-to-exercise-some-restraint-in-its-rhetoric/). But now, even with his effort to lift the lockout on the verge of sleeping with the fishes, Smith continues to talk tough.
“It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,” Smith told reporters after Monday’s ruling. “Congratulations.”

We’re not sure what that means.
The league hasn’t sued anyone. The league wants to impose economic pressure on the players via a lockout, and the players decertified and filed an antitrust lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the lockout. Today’s ruling that the lockout won’t be lifted pending resolution of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit hardly represents the NFL suing to not plays its game.
With a reversal of Judge Nelson’s ruling now looming, Smith’s comments likely have less to do with shaping public opinion and more to do with scrambling to keep the players unified, even if doing so requires Smith to distort the facts in the hopes of playing to the players’ emotions.
The problem is that, while such comments may be help keep the players on the same page, they’ll make it harder for the players and the league to ever make it into the same library again.

I saw the clip of smith making this quote. At the beginning I didn't care who won much but the union' s sham acts and smiths smugness really turned me off the players.

[Tony Oday]

I have always been on the side of the owner's...the players in my opinion are lucky to get paid what they do...you don't see football teams with billions in profits and they could. A smart politician could say "hey we want a cut on football games too take it out of the players end because they get paid too much and we need to redistribute wealth."

[Guiness]

I think this issue is the union's biggest problem right now. On the surface (and under it too), it looks like gamesmanship because it is that. Their actions show that they really weren't "negotiating in good faith" because if they didn't get what they wanted they'd just try it a different way.

I'm not saying that the NFL is behaving like Mother Teresa either, however, but at the 11th hour, they were trying to negotiate with alternate proposals. I don't recall one counter offer of substance from the Union. It seems that all along, it was either, meet our demands or we'll decertify and get the courts to give us what we want.

If it weren't for this, I think the majority of the fans would be united behind the players. While they aren't "little guys" by normal standards, compared to the owners they are, and America tends to lean that way, unless there is a compelling reason. Decertification gave it to us, I guess.


I agree that neither party has much of a morale highground here, and both sides have taken their turns pissing me off with their positions.

But on the issue of offers, I don't blame the players for not making one. Their main demand has been steady demand since the beginning - show us your unabridged books. Whether you think they deserve to see them, or the owners should be forced to disclose them is another matter. The players have asked to see them, and their position is that they can't put together an offer until they do.

This is one point I happen to agree with them on, and it's the owners offers that have convinced me. The differences between their original offer, and their later ones (what we know of them, at least) they moved a LOT. To the point that it looks like they'd rather give up more than hand over the books, which makes me feel like their trying to hide something.

I think the union would likely accept one of the later proposals, if they were shown the books and didn't find anything fishy. I also think the leaks out of the NFLPA wrt sensitive team financial data would make your hair curl.

[Patler]

I have always been on the side of the owner's...the players in my opinion are lucky to get paid what they do...you don't see football teams with billions in profits and they could. A smart politician could say "hey we want a cut on football games too take it out of the players end because they get paid too much and we need to redistribute wealth."

It would certainly be reasonable for politicians to argue that both owners and players should make less to have sufficient money to pay their own way in remodeling stadiums or building new ones. It seems a bit absurd having teams begging for taxpayer money to build a place for them to work when the average player income is about $2 million.

[Patler]

I agree that neither party has much of a morale highground here, and both sides have taken their turns pissing me off with their positions.

But on the issue of offers, I don't blame the players for not making one. Their main demand has been steady demand since the beginning - show us your unabridged books. Whether you think they deserve to see them, or the owners should be forced to disclose them is another matter. The players have asked to see them, and their position is that they can't put together an offer until they do.

This is one point I happen to agree with them on, and it's the owners offers that have convinced me. The differences between their original offer, and their later ones (what we know of them, at least) they moved a LOT. To the point that it looks like they'd rather give up more than hand over the books, which makes me feel like their trying to hide something.

I think the union would likely accept one of the later proposals, if they were shown the books and didn't find anything fishy. I also think the leaks out of the NFLPA wrt sensitive team financial data would make your hair curl.

The part that has bothered me about the players position is that it sort of assumes that they are entitled to some given percentage of the income, or that there is a limit on the amount that an owner should make. I don't agree with either of those positions.

I don't object to the players holding tough and "demanding" to see the books, but in the end I think it is the owners right to refuse to show them. Then it would come down to who caves in first, and that would be fine with me. If the owners caved, I would be fine with that. If the players did, that would be OK too.

[SkinBasket]

It would certainly be reasonable for politicians to argue that both owners and players should make less to have sufficient money to pay their own way in remodeling stadiums or building new ones. It seems a bit absurd having teams begging for taxpayer money to build a place for them to work when the average player income is about $2 million.

That was my thought before for all the people clamoring about how the government should be able to control the owners because taxes fund stadiums. Fine, make the owners pay for the stadiums and see just how much is left for the players. Team salary caps would be closer to $30 million than $130.

[Patler]

The part that has bothered me about the players position is that it sort of assumes that they are entitled to some given percentage of the income, or that there is a limit on the amount that an owner should make. I don't agree with either of those positions.

I don't object to the players holding tough and "demanding" to see the books, but in the end I think it is the owners right to refuse to show them. Then it would come down to who caves in first, and that would be fine with me. If the owners caved, I would be fine with that. If the players did, that would be OK too.


That was my thought before for all the people clamoring about how the government should be able to control the owners because taxes fund stadiums. Fine, make the owners pay for the stadiums and see just how much is left for the players. Team salary caps would be closer to $30 million than $130.

Even at that, average player salaries could be a half-million or more; which in the overall scheme of society should be more than adequate. It would still put them in the very highest compensation levels for workers.

[get louder at lambeau]

The part that has bothered me about the players position is that it sort of assumes that they are entitled to some given percentage of the income, or that there is a limit on the amount that an owner should make. I don't agree with either of those positions.

I don't object to the players holding tough and "demanding" to see the books, but in the end I think it is the owners right to refuse to show them. Then it would come down to who caves in first, and that would be fine with me. If the owners caved, I would be fine with that. If the players did, that would be OK too.

That's about how I see it too.

The players want to see the books to justify what they see as a pay cut, based on comparison to what they would have gotten from the old CBA if it was still in effect going forward. They would still get more money every year under the new NFL proposal (from right before the lockout), as I understand it, but their pay wouldn't be as high as it would have been under the old CBA, because it wouldn't be tied as closely to overall revenue. They view that as a pay cut, even though they would make more money every year. That isn't a pay cut. It's still a raise if you get more money every year. It's just not as big of a raise as they are hoping to get.

I don't think the players are entitled to see the NFL's books. I don't blame them for wanting to see them, but I don't think they deserve to see them, legally. I don't think the owners owe them a look at the books from a business ethics perspective either. I would be open to hearing a good argument as to why they deserve to see them, but the public explanation put forth by the NFLPA isn't a very good one, IMO.

I don't blame either side for playing hardball. That's the nature of negotiations when gigantic money is at stake. They'd be irresponsible not to use every advantage they have. I tend to side with the owners, because money in their pockets helps to make the league what it is, while money in the players pockets buys real estate and cars. From an NFL fan's perspective, I think would be better for the product if the NFL doesn't have to treat players as part owners with short term interests.

[Patler]

I tend to side with the owners, because money in their pockets helps to make the league what it is, while money in the players pockets buys real estate and cars. From an NFL fan's perspective, I think would be better for the product if the NFL doesn't have to treat players as part owners with short term interests.

Well put.

[Pugger]

Didn't the owners say they'd let a third party look at their books and report their findings to the players?

[Lurker64]

Didn't the owners say they'd let a third party look at their books and report their findings to the players?

Various things along those lines have been reported yes. It was unclear, however, the actual terms of these as D. Smith just kept hammering "show us your books" and how everything short of that would be meaningless. I have a suspicion that the real reason that Smith wanted access to the NFL's books is so that he could trot out embarrassing details about rich folks and use them as class war propaganda in the PR battle. It wouldn't matter if 26 NFL teams were actually in the exact position that the NFL said they were, if there were 6 teams that were doing well those are the 6 they would hammer on.

Which I suppose is why the league was never actually receptive to sharing their ledgers.

[Guiness]

Didn't the owners say they'd let a third party look at their books and report their findings to the players?

Hence my comment on 'unabridged books.'

I think they were going to have a 3rd party look at the audited books, but not necessarily see the individual line items.


It wouldn't matter if 26 NFL teams were actually in the exact position that the NFL said they were, if there were 6 teams that were doing well those are the 6 they would hammer on.

And without the individual line items, they could not do what Lurker mentions, which I also suspect is at least part of their strategy.

As mentioned before, there's likely at least one owner out there who has his extended family on the payroll, making a few hundred thousand each, as 'quality control' people.

[Fritz]

Wonder if Don Majkowski's been working out in preparation for the NFL season?

Hey, maybe tony Mandarich will sign up and play guard. He can make up for his earlier career or lack of career in Gren Bay. Maybe Bill Schroeder's in good enough shape, too.

Replacement NFL, here we come!

[sharpe1027]

I think the owners might be the lesser of two evils, but owners can sometimes have a short term interest too. There's no requirement that owners put the money back into their teams or that plan for long-term growth of the league. In many cases it happens, but owners might be in it just for their own personal glory and do things that have nothing to do with the league being better (Jerry Jones anyone?). Other owners might have other motives (turning a profit on resale rather than long term stability). Maybe the NFL should become a non-profit organization.

Look at it another way, who creates more value to the league, the owners or the players. Which would have a bigger effect? Replacing all of the current owners or replacing all of the current players?

[get louder at lambeau]

I think the owners might be the lesser of two evils, but owners can sometimes have a short term interest too. There's no requirement that owners put the money back into their teams or that plan for long-term growth of the league. In many cases it happens, but owners might be in it just for their own personal glory and do things that have nothing to do with the league being better (Jerry Jones anyone?).

Jerry Jones just built a gigantic new stadium for the Packers to win a Super Bowl in.

[MJZiggy]

Jerry Jones just built a gigantic new stadium for the Packers to win a Super Bowl in.

Didn't the city of Dallas do that? Or at least pay for a good chunk of it?

[get louder at lambeau]

Didn't the city of Dallas do that? Or at least pay for a good chunk of it?


Mr. Jones financed the $1.2 billion price tag mostly by going to the credit markets, just like every other highly profitable private business is expected to do. He did get $300 million from the city of Arlington, but in an era when taxpayers are expected to pick up most—if not all—of a stadium's cost, this was a *bargain.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385050331125812.html

[NewsBruin]

Well, like I've said from the beginning...

Just kidding, that was a Required Messageboard Statement.

Actually, I still side with the players on the isssue (reducing the pot by $1 billion without specific justification), but I think they've screwed the pooch from here to Miami and back to Minnesota.

I don't like the antitrust lawsuits in theory (how can they sue for rules that were either part of a past CBA or that haven't happened yet?) or in principle (this is going to make the rich players/teams richer and the poor players/teams poorer and less competitive). I don't think the "irreperable harm" standard was met on their side (and the League's done a decent job convincing me that irreperable harm would be done to them were the lockout enjoined). And I think the NFLPA's really painted themselves in a corner by decertifying, because they can't collectively bargain, they can't make players NOT indvidually bargain, and they can't recertify without shooting themselves in the foot in any NLRB matters.

I wish I had thought about this more in retrospect, not because I was for decertification or the antitrust lawsuits, but because I wish I were more against it as strategic maneuvers (like threatening to ask the Ugly Girl to the prom to make the cheerleader go with you; the cheerleader calls your bluff, and now you're honor-bound to slow-dance with Nanny McPhee).

I still side with the players on the CBA issue, but they've lost my respect as a union. I don't have that much love for the owners (sorry you can't agree more on revenue-sharing, Comcast didn't want to put the NFL Network on basic tier, and Jerrah couldn't keep his fool trap shut with DirecTV negotiations), but I think they deservedly have a better bargaining position now if they want to get back to the table.

And not to sound like an evil, uncaring, progressive-liberal-media, commerce-crushing type that everyone on this board repudiates, but I think it would be best if the league committed to hammering out a deal that addressed everyone's desires and wasn't about "sending a message," only because that's going to lead this to happening all over again when the next CBA expires.

Which is what shoud have been the goal all along. I wish each side had a Patler and knew how to use it.

[Bretsky]

I saw the clip of smith making this quote. At the beginning I didn't care who won much but the union' s sham acts and smiths smugness really turned me off the players.


ditto; I'd have to admit I've been pro owner, but watching this dude play his game has really turned me off. A wise man once said there was a reason the union elected this guy instead of one of their own former players :)

[King Friday]

I'm not for either side. I'm for the fans, who just want football and don't really care how much of the multi-billion dollar pie is split between an owner, a player, and a janitor. All a fan knows is that there is PLENTY of money to go around and make everyone filthy rich (well, except for the janitor).

The players have really hurt themselves during this lockout. Smith might be a smart lawyer-type, but he's a PR nightmare in my mind. He also is very disconnected to the players, and it shows. The whole flap over telling the college kids to skip the draft was crazy stupid. Whoever thought that up really doesn't have much common sense. This is between the owners and the CURRENT players, not the college kids getting drafted that don't even have a contract yet.

Ultimately, the owners always hold all the cards. The players have a limited period of earnings potential, and can't afford to waste months and years like the owners can. It is best for the players to be civil and honest...they had reasonable arguments on their side this time, and probably could've gotten a deal that was at least a partial win for them if they hadn't started the name-calling and crazy crap. Now, the momentum is shifting and it is starting to look more likely that the players will wind up on the losing end of this.

[CaliforniaCheez]

The main problem is there are too many misconceptions. Players think deals rachet only one way and they can never go the other way. Deals don't always get better. In bad times their are rollbacks.
Seeing the books? Al Davis doesn't even show his co owners the books!! If you owned 15% of the Raiders you get only what Al says and you have to trust his honesty. The owners will not open them this time but the word will go out to clean up the books because they will likely have to open them in the future.

What the owners did not anticipate is so much of the racial rhetoric coming from the players. When you hear "slave" and "plantation" being thrown around it can simmer into a lot larger problem. Sitting in court for years is a problem for the owners because there is always a crazy judge that can impose and whole new NFL on the public. This lawsuit demanding the elimination of the draft, salary cap, and player limits is serious business if you believe the decertification of the union. The players were stupid to hire a lawyer who never played in the league.

Having labor peace for over 20 years has been great. If it costs a season to keep labor peace for another 20 years I am willing to give up the whole season. I never want to go through another 1982 season again. It is too bad that this of all years did not have a fan fest and cut out a lot of the celebrations.

[swede]

The main problem is there are too many misconceptions. Players think deals rachet only one way and they can never go the other way. Deals don't always get better. In bad times their are rollbacks.
Seeing the books? Al Davis doesn't even show his co owners the books!! If you owned 15% of the Raiders you get only what Al says and you have to trust his honesty. The owners will not open them this time but the word will go out to clean up the books because they will likely have to open them in the future.

What the owners did not anticipate is so much of the racial rhetoric coming from the players. When you hear "slave" and "plantation" being thrown around it can simmer into a lot larger problem. Sitting in court for years is a problem for the owners because there is always a crazy judge that can impose and whole new NFL on the public. This lawsuit demanding the elimination of the draft, salary cap, and player limits is serious business if you believe the decertification of the union. The players were stupid to hire a lawyer who never played in the league.

Having labor peace for over 20 years has been great. If it costs a season to keep labor peace for another 20 years I am willing to give up the whole season. I never want to go through another 1982 season again. It is too bad that this of all years did not have a fan fest and cut out a lot of the celebrations.

Wise wisdom. Great post.

[bobblehead]

What the owners did not anticipate is so much of the racial rhetoric coming from the players. When you hear "slave" and "plantation" being thrown around it can simmer into a lot larger problem. .

Lord Have Mercy....a good judge has stayed the lockout and the slaves remain free. They can NOT be exploited by those evil plantation owners any longer.

AP is dancing in the streets (or around a fire, or whatever former slaves do when they are freed)

[SkinBasket]

And not to sound like an evil, uncaring, progressive-liberal-media, commerce-crushing type that everyone on this board repudiates, but I think it would be best if the league committed to hammering out a deal that addressed everyone's desires and wasn't about "sending a message," only because that's going to lead this to happening all over again when the next CBA expires.

I think that's more what a lot of people here would like to see, but the league, from all reports has been the only party to try to bridge the gap between the players and the owners, making concessions while the players sit and pout, so I doubt the NFL is going to "punish" the players should they gain every upper hand through the courts. The owners still realize the those players provide the best product and the best product makes the most money.

[Tony Oday]

I think that's more what a lot of people here would like to see, but the league, from all reports has been the only party to try to bridge the gap between the players and the owners, making concessions while the players sit and pout, so I doubt the NFL is going to "punish" the players should they gain every upper hand through the courts. The owners still realize the those players provide the best product and the best product makes the most money.

Cap salaries at $500,000 per player per win.

[NewsBruin]

Skin, I want to comment on your "from all reports" statement: Near the end of CBA negotiations, Goodell said the offer might not be made again. That might just be gamesmanship, but get folks like Richardson and Jerrah, and it might not be all olive branches.

The league offered a lot of different things at the CBA deadline, but a good chunk of them were low-cost or money-saving issues: fewer OTA's, shorter camps, less contact, independent drug-suspension appeal. They did start decreasing their drawback amount from $1 billion to something less, but still didn't really address the union's question directly: why they needed the money. I didn't examine the last offer much (because I didn't think it would be taken), but some players questioned the salary-cap staying stagnant for a while and not rising with revenues. (Okay, it came from Chris Kluwe's whiteboard.)

Were I a player rep (being a 34-year old, college-educated white male who follows the health-care industry doggedly), I'd have seriously considered their last offer when they threw in lifetime funded healthcare. I don't think that was a smart move on the league's part, but I'd have taken it.

Crazy as it sounds, a lot of the NFL's success has come from its selfishly socialistic setup, and if the owners or players screw that up, this league is not going to be as successful as it has been.

[Patler]

The league offered a lot of different things at the CBA deadline, but a good chunk of them were low-cost or money-saving issues: fewer OTA's, shorter camps, less contact, independent drug-suspension appeal. They did start decreasing their drawback amount from $1 billion to something less, but still didn't really address the union's question directly: why they needed the money.

I don't dispute your summary at all, but therein lies the real issue. The owners should not have to prove they need the money. Arguably, with the old CBA terminated, its the owners money. Maybe the players should have to prove that THEY need the money, otherwise the owners should get to keep it.

This goes back to what I said has always bothered me with the players position. It presupposes that they are fundamentally entitled to a given % of some defined amount, or that the owners are entitled to only a given profit with everything else going to the players. Neither makes a lot of sense to me. I recognize that the expired CBA tried to establish that type of framework in fairly great detail. But times have changed. New stadiums are "needed" and owners are having to pay bigger and bigger shares. New revenue sources are needed and have been found. Owners need to have greater certainty in their costs to the extent they can so they can better plan capital improvements and business expansions.

I am in favor of scraping the silly calculation of the salary cap being an ever change percentage of poorly defined values. That only leads to confusion and misunderstandings, which lead ultimately distrust.

Sign a CBA with defined salary caps. Fixed dollar amounts known ahead of time for each year that the CBA covers. They did it in the past for minimum salaries, restricted free agent tenders, etc. No reason they can't just specify actual salary caps. Certainty is a good thing.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, I want to comment on your "from all reports" statement: Near the end of CBA negotiations, Goodell said the offer might not be made again. That might just be gamesmanship, but get folks like Richardson and Jerrah, and it might not be all olive branches.

The league offered a lot of different things at the CBA deadline, but a good chunk of them were low-cost or money-saving issues: fewer OTA's, shorter camps, less contact, independent drug-suspension appeal. They did start decreasing their drawback amount from $1 billion to something less, but still didn't really address the union's question directly: why they needed the money. I didn't examine the last offer much (because I didn't think it would be taken), but some players questioned the salary-cap staying stagnant for a while and not rising with revenues. (Okay, it came from Chris Kluwe's whiteboard.)

Were I a player rep (being a 34-year old, college-educated white male who follows the health-care industry doggedly), I'd have seriously considered their last offer when they threw in lifetime funded healthcare. I don't think that was a smart move on the league's part, but I'd have taken it.

Crazy as it sounds, a lot of the NFL's success has come from its selfishly socialistic setup, and if the owners or players screw that up, this league is not going to be as successful as it has been.

Patler x2 on the money issue.

It was dumb for the NFL to agree in mediation this last week to make another offer. At this point, they're just bidding against themselves while the players sit and pout and make zero concessions. That's not negotiation. Maybe they're hoping the mediator will see their willingness to be serious about concessions and push the players that much harder after the offer's drawn up. And while I believe that the league will make a fair offer should everything fall their way, I don't think it should be as good as the final offer before the desertification. That's just poor bargaining. Because this will happen again. The players need to understand they need to push their own leadership to be reasonable in negotiations.

[sharpe1027]

The owners could seek a set cap, but as far as I can tell they still want the percentage thing. Since the players have no set cap offer on the table, it seems logical for them proceed down the path of trying to determine what percentage they can/should get. IMO, the whole "open your books" thing is just a public opinion battle. The owners publicly cried foul saying they needed the money, and the players countered with "prove it." I don't see it as the players assuming they are entitled to X% so much as the players are simply negotiating within the framework setup by the owners.

[Patler]

The owners could seek a set cap, but as far as I can tell they still want the percentage thing. Since the players have no set cap offer on the table, it seems logical for them proceed down the path of trying to determine what percentage they can/should get. IMO, the whole "open your books" thing is just a public opinion battle. The owners publicly cried foul saying they needed the money, and the players counted with "prove it." I don't see it as the players assuming they are entitled to X% so much as the players are simply negotiating within the framework setup by the owners.

One of the owner's proposals provided 2 or 3 years of pre-defined salary caps. Fixed amounts that were greater each year. The players called it a cutback because they felt it was less than they would have gotten under the old CBA calculations. It was more and more each year, but didn't meet the percentage they felt they were entitled to.

The owners early on showed how some of their costs have increased at a faster rate than income, including travel, insurances and other player costs. But that wasn't good enough for the players. They remain fixated on a percentage of revenues type of entitlement. That's a hard way to run a business, when a huge part of the annual expense (the salary cap) is a constantly moving and poorly defined target.

[NewsBruin]

I don't dispute your summary at all, but therein lies the real issue. The owners should not have to prove they need the money. Arguably, with the old CBA terminated, its the owners money. Maybe the players should have to prove that THEY need the money, otherwise the owners should get to keep it.

This goes back to what I said has always bothered me with the players position. It presupposes that they are fundamentally entitled to a given % of some defined amount, or that the owners are entitled to only a given profit with everything else going to the players. Neither makes a lot of sense to me. I recognize that the expired CBA tried to establish that type of framework in fairly great detail. But times have changed. New stadiums are "needed" and owners are having to pay bigger and bigger shares. New revenue sources are needed and have been found. Owners need to have greater certainty in their costs to the extent they can so they can better plan capital improvements and business expansions.

I am in favor of scraping the silly calculation of the salary cap being an ever change percentage of poorly defined values. That only leads to confusion and misunderstandings, which lead ultimately distrust.

Sign a CBA with defined salary caps. Fixed dollar amounts known ahead of time for each year that the CBA covers. They did it in the past for minimum salaries, restricted free agent tenders, etc. No reason they can't just specify actual salary caps. Certainty is a good thing.

I know very little about labor law, and I work in a non-union state in a field that doesn't have any union history, so I don't know much about precedent, and, therefore, the following paragraph is based on little more than my opinion:

Normally, I don't think employees have a right to know what the employer makes. However, since the CBA determined player compensation as a percentage of income, and income in all measurable areas had been peaking in the past two years, if I were part of the union, I'd want to know under what circumstances I needed to give back 12.5% of my income ($4.8 vs $4.2). I'd want to know what costs had risen that made such a move necessary.

Patler, when you had made your poll about the max profit a team/owner should "deserve" to make, I was surprised no one asked why a team was entitled to any profit. If Jerrah Jones can pull off a Cowboys profit under the overall structure of the NFL (revenue-sharing, TV contracts, advertising, limits on the local revenues a team can keep), that's great. If Richardson can't get enough local businesses to buy Jags tickets to avert a blackout, should he still be guaranteed a profit?

[rant]
It seems the owners are asking the players to subsidize their losses/investments (new stadiums, NFL Network, breaking into transPac/TransAtlantic markets) and telling the players the league can't afford to have a year in the red (or a year less in the black than usual). There are many companies who have to take a "bad year" because of their unrealized investments. Why not the NFL? Which defensive back told the league it had to start a cable network? Which pulling guard told Jerrah, "You know, that thing would be bad-ass if you just included a retractable cutout and elite clubs in the walkways between the field and lockerroom? Go for an extra $100 million. You're worth it."

The league is also putting the players on the hook for all their outreach to older players. When league officials say, "Player Costs are rising faster than income," "Player Costs" includes the increased pension payouts, new dementia programs, transporting collegians to the Combine and contract players to OTAs, and 1/3 of the medical tape in the trainer's room. By those definitions, yes, "Player Costs" increases will always exceed income increases (unless there's a worldwide downturn in medical tape costs). In fact, if the "Player Costs" are X percent higher than than the player income, then the difference is taken from the players' income.

In short, if the Player Costs amount exceeds that X percentage, then when the NFL announces its next retired players' initiative to huge PR acclaim, the entire percentage is going to be borne out of money that would go to the players (I would guess as postseason/rookie bonuses and the like). Granted, all of this has been agreed to by both parties in the CBA, so I hope the players don't feel too badly about it, but are aware.

I just don't like the impression that increased investment costs and increased "Player Costs" are the often portrayed as the fault of the players.

So, as much as some praise the long-term vision of the owners (like Mike Brown, who charges the players for free shoes) and plaintively explain how their brave risk-taking is making the league better, it seems they don't deserve to take any loss for their risks, be it stadium mortgages, broadcast-revenue-tied lines of credit, cable companies not wanting to carry NFL Network, or very good-intended health programs. These lions of industry supposedly knew what they were getting into and had the MBAs on staff/contract to advise them. As much as some posters write that they don't know of another industry where the company can't make a deal expressly to get less money for the benefit of squeezing out labor in a work stoppage, I don't know of a profitable company that asks its employees to give back money because it's not making as much profit as it expected to.

But then again, I'm far from a labor expert, and I like this topic because of all it's teaching me.
[/end rant]

So, to answer Patler's question, normally, I don't think privately-held companies opening the books to labor is necessary, and shouldn't be law. However, when the only thing that's being asked for from labor is 12.5% money back after multiple profitable years, I think that's a fair question for labor to ask. And if the owners and players can work out a new CBA without opening the books, that's great.

If the owners and players can work out a new CBA with a cap that's tied to a set dollar amount, rather than a percentage, that's great, too. It puts more risk/reward on the owners, which is how I think most of the board wants it. However, I don't think the players would accept either a fixed amount or percentage deal that starts out with 88 cents on the dollar, unless the league could explain in detail why it needs that money.

[NewsBruin]

And, just to be clear, I don't think the players are entitled to sit back and say, "same as before or nothing." I agree with SkinBasket -- that's not negotiating. I also have described the quasi-union's legal strategies as "screwing the pooch." Just to be fair.

[Bretsky]

Peter King predicted that the final offer the owners made would be the offer the players end up accepting right after they rejected it. That was interesting.

I listened more to Smith today on Sirius. The guy really comes accross as a serious douchebag who talks down to people. The players union should shut this guy up. With every word he brings out the player popularity will be hurt more. But that's what they wanted

[sharpe1027]

One of the owner's proposals provided 2 or 3 years of pre-defined salary caps. Fixed amounts that were greater each year. The players called it a cutback because they felt it was less than they would have gotten under the old CBA calculations. It was more and more each year, but didn't meet the percentage they felt they were entitled to.

Wasn't that deal 10 years long though, with only the first years fixed? In any event, it all comes down to the final amount, same as any employee-employer battle. Just because their past reference point was expressed as a percentage doesn't mean they have no reason to believe they are worth more than what they were offered.



The owners early on showed how some of their costs have increased at a faster rate than income, including travel, insurances and other player costs. But that wasn't good enough for the players. They remain fixated on a percentage of revenues type of entitlement. That's a hard way to run a business, when a huge part of the annual expense (the salary cap) is a constantly moving and poorly defined target.


The key is they showed "some" of their expenses. Which expenses do you think they chose to share? The annual expense is a percentage calculated after their expenses are taken out. I am sure most other businesses would just hate to have that "difficulty."

[Lurker64]

Wasn't that deal 10 years long though, with only the first years fixed? In any event, it all comes down to the final amount, same as any employee-employer battle. Just because their past reference point was expressed as a percentage doesn't mean they have no reason to believe they are worth more than what they were offered.

I believe that all CBA proposals have been 5 years, which is the standard length for one of these. If I recall correctly, the player's opposition to the "pegged cap" proposal of the Players was that they were upset that the proposal didn't include a provision where the cap would increase by a certain percentage if revenues exceeded projections. That to me, seems unreasonable unless the cap were to also decrease by a certain percentage in the event that revenues fall short of projections.

[Deputy Nutz]

If the players have an issue with being locked out then they should sit out the season. It is the only way for them the gain anything at the bargining table. The owners hold all the power until the season starts. The owners still get paid from the TV contracts, but that isn't going to play out well to the fans. The bottom line is that the Owners locked out the players. It would then be on the owners to replace the players, bring in the scabs and prove that the NFL can be a viable sport and provide the entertainment value that the fans can expect and pay for.

The NFL has grown to be 9 billion dollar business, they have free agency and a salary cap, one of the firmer caps in all of sports. The owners had taken advantage of a weak player union for decades and they have finally run up against a players union that is refusing to back down.

I agree this has no business in the court system, but the owners have grown to 9 billion on the backs of their players, I am not buying Jerry Jones' business suits, I am buying jerseys of the players, I don't watch the day to day business dealing of a franchise on Fox, I watch the players that actually play the game. An owner of a NFL franchise is living on easy street(unless in upper New York).

Players don't get assistance from the Federal Government to play football, but the owners certainly don't mind asking us tax payers to fund their stadiums.

This is a free market society, the Players thought they were slick by de-unionizing, the NFL doesn't have to mediate with the former players union anymore, they can go and sign a whole new group of player to fill their rosters, and the owners can name their price. I just won't give a damn about the NFL, and the UFL sounds pretty good. Bring a team to Milwaukee!

[Patler]

Normally, I don't think employees have a right to know what the employer makes. However, since the CBA determined player compensation as a percentage of income, and income in all measurable areas had been peaking in the past two years, if I were part of the union, I'd want to know under what circumstances I needed to give back 12.5% of my income ($4.8 vs $4.2). I'd want to know what costs had risen that made such a move necessary.

If the CBA were still in existence, and the owners were requesting a reduction or change as a result of different circumstances, I would agree with you. But, that is not what happened. The CBA ended. Granted, it was not the full-life expiration but instead a proper kill-shot administered by the owners as they had a right to do. Accordingly, the players are not giving anything back. It is the start of a new deal.


Patler, when you had made your poll about the max profit a team/owner should "deserve" to make, I was surprised no one asked why a team was entitled to any profit. If Jerrah Jones can pull off a Cowboys profit under the overall structure of the NFL (revenue-sharing, TV contracts, advertising, limits on the local revenues a team can keep), that's great. If Richardson can't get enough local businesses to buy Jags tickets to avert a blackout, should he still be guaranteed a profit?

I never suggested that owners should be guaranteed profit. I simply wanted people to think and comment about owners profits compared to players incomes, because if and when the books are opened the players will comment and complain about the money certain owners are making. This is not a struggling industry, and revenue sharing assures all should profit. Granted, some will make a lot more than others due to higher unshared incomes, and that is how it should be. Clearly the players want to take away as much of the owners' profits as they can, but where does it become unreasonable? If top QBs will be making $20 M/year, what is reasonable for a good owner? When is he making so much that the players are being taken advantage of? I didn't expect to decide on an amount, I just wanted to stimulate a discussion about owners' profits


[rant]
It seems the owners are asking the players to subsidize their losses/investments (new stadiums, NFL Network, breaking into transPac/TransAtlantic markets) and telling the players the league can't afford to have a year in the red (or a year less in the black than usual). There are many companies who have to take a "bad year" because of their unrealized investments. Why not the NFL? Which defensive back told the league it had to start a cable network? Which pulling guard told Jerrah, "You know, that thing would be bad-ass if you just included a retractable cutout and elite clubs in the walkways between the field and lockerroom? Go for an extra $100 million. You're worth it."

The league is also putting the players on the hook for all their outreach to older players. When league officials say, "Player Costs are rising faster than income," "Player Costs" includes the increased pension payouts, new dementia programs, transporting collegians to the Combine and contract players to OTAs, and 1/3 of the medical tape in the trainer's room. By those definitions, yes, "Player Costs" increases will always exceed income increases (unless there's a worldwide downturn in medical tape costs). In fact, if the "Player Costs" are X percent higher than than the player income, then the difference is taken from the players' income.

In short, if the Player Costs amount exceeds that X percentage, then when the NFL announces its next retired players' initiative to huge PR acclaim, the entire percentage is going to be borne out of money that would go to the players (I would guess as postseason/rookie bonuses and the like). Granted, all of this has been agreed to by both parties in the CBA, so I hope the players don't feel too badly about it, but are aware.

I just don't like the impression that increased investment costs and increased "Player Costs" are the often portrayed as the fault of the players.

So, as much as some praise the long-term vision of the owners (like Mike Brown, who charges the players for free shoes) and plaintively explain how their brave risk-taking is making the league better, it seems they don't deserve to take any loss for their risks, be it stadium mortgages, broadcast-revenue-tied lines of credit, cable companies not wanting to carry NFL Network, or very good-intended health programs. These lions of industry supposedly knew what they were getting into and had the MBAs on staff/contract to advise them. As much as some posters write that they don't know of another industry where the company can't make a deal expressly to get less money for the benefit of squeezing out labor in a work stoppage, I don't know of a profitable company that asks its employees to give back money because it's not making as much profit as it expected to.

But then again, I'm far from a labor expert, and I like this topic because of all it's teaching me.
[/end rant]

So, to answer Patler's question, normally, I don't think privately-held companies opening the books to labor is necessary, and shouldn't be law. However, when the only thing that's being asked for from labor is 12.5% money back after multiple profitable years, I think that's a fair question for labor to ask. And if the owners and players can work out a new CBA without opening the books, that's great.

If the owners and players can work out a new CBA with a cap that's tied to a set dollar amount, rather than a percentage, that's great, too. It puts more risk/reward on the owners, which is how I think most of the board wants it. However, I don't think the players would accept either a fixed amount or percentage deal that starts out with 88 cents on the dollar, unless the league could explain in detail why it needs that money.

Well, either the players are "partners" with the owners or they aren't. They want to be paid like partners in sharing the wealth, but are less willing to be like partners when it requires an investment toward expansion/development.

In my opinion, the whole "partnership" scenario for determining the salary cap was doomed from the start, because the players have no say in the decisions for expansion and investment. If the league were to be run somewhat statically, it would work for a time. It may have worked well from the '70s through the early 2000's when the primary growth in revenue was from broadcast rights. But that is changing. Future growth will likely require investment. The players have to decide if they are partners in that, or not.

[bobblehead]

Were I a player rep (being a 34-year old, college-educated white male who follows the health-care industry doggedly), I'd have seriously considered their last offer when they threw in lifetime funded healthcare. I don't think that was a smart move on the league's part, but I'd have taken it.

.

You would have made a mistake. Forgoing money now for promises later. 10 years from now the NFL may declare bankruptcy as healthcare costs make them insolvent. NEVER take something promised later and lose something now.

[bobblehead]

I don't dispute your summary at all, but therein lies the real issue. The owners should not have to prove they need the money. Arguably, with the old CBA terminated, its the owners money. Maybe the players should have to prove that THEY need the money, otherwise the owners should get to keep it.

.

Your one problem here is that the NFL's setup is in anti trust violation without a union contract. Rookie draft, salary caps, limited FA....these are all violations unless you have an agreement with the union.

[Patler]

Your one problem here is that the NFL's setup is in anti trust violation without a union contract. Rookie draft, salary caps, limited FA....these are all violations unless you have an agreement with the union.

No, that's not a problem at all. My point was that the old CBA ended. The owners have nothing to prove under it. They could just as well take the position that they are negotiating a new CBA from a clean slate, and I honestly think they should.

[SkinBasket]

Your one problem here is that the NFL's setup is in anti trust violation without a union contract. Rookie draft, salary caps, limited FA....these are all violations unless you have an agreement with the union.

Maybe the NFL should become a private club, available to players through invitation only. Then they cans set whatever rules they want and the players can suck a fat cock or start their own socialist league that a few people around here are rooting for.

[sharpe1027]

Well, either the players are "partners" with the owners or they aren't. They want to be paid like partners in sharing the wealth, but are less willing to be like partners when it requires an investment toward expansion/development.

In my opinion, the whole "partnership" scenario for determining the salary cap was doomed from the start, because the players have no say in the decisions for expansion and investment. If the league were to be run somewhat statically, it would work for a time. It may have worked well from the '70s through the early 2000's when the primary growth in revenue was from broadcast rights. But that is changing. Future growth will likely require investment. The players have to decide if they are partners in that, or not.

I don't think the players need to decide if they are partners just because they get a percentage share of profits. The investment concern is an issue, but I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as you make it sound. While the owners might make less return on their investment with the sharing model, they would still make a return on their investment. Sharing might result the owners being less willing to invest, but that might not be the worst thing since otherwise they would be more willing to take big risks.

In a normal business environment with a limited work force, the employee's wages would be implicitly tied to profits because different businesses would be competing for their services and would pay according to the possible return for getting good employees. The salary cap artificially keeps player's wages at a set level/percentage that all but guarantees that the owners can make a profit. In return, the players are asking that they get what they think is fair, and the owners strongly, and quite possibly correctly, disagree with what is fair. If, however, the owner's didn't have a salary cap, it is likely the players would make an even more than what they are asking for now and the amount they were paid would likely vary according to the success of the league.

[SkinBasket]

If, however, the owner's didn't have a salary cap, it is likely the players would make an even more than what they are asking for now and the amount they were paid would likely vary according to the success of the league.

More likely is that a few players would make even more money, and a lot of them would make less. Without a salary cap max, there's not going to be a floor either. Then the league looks like baseball. 3-4 major markets spending 10x what most teams do to be in the playoffs every year, and a few others cycling between young in-house talent about to be bought by the major markets and a few high-priced, short term leased players during their "window of opportunity." The rest of the league plays it's games for the sake of playing the games until they happen across some unexpected talent and get their chance to compete for a year or two before being raped of their talent and spending the next decade playing with leftovers again.

Then revenue plummets and the players make far less than they do now. Very exciting stuff.

[sharpe1027]

More likely is that a few players would make even more money, and a lot of them would make less. Without a salary cap max, there's not going to be a floor either. Then the league looks like baseball. 3-4 major markets spending 10x what most teams do to be in the playoffs every year, and a few others cycling between young in-house talent about to be bought by the major markets and a few high-priced, short term leased players during their "window of opportunity." The rest of the league plays it's games for the sake of playing the games until they happen across some unexpected talent and get their chance to compete for a year or two before being raped of their talent and spending the next decade playing with leftovers again.

Then revenue plummets and the players make far less than they do now. Very exciting stuff.

I agree with what you said, it is consistent with what I said. There would likely be a larger disparity of wages, both between teams and between players, but the owners would likely still be paying out more overall.

Although there would be no floor, how many teams are even close to the floor now? If almost no teams ran up against the floor last year, it would suggest that the previous floor was effectively meaningless.

I'm not advocating for the salary cap to be removed, it would be very bad IMO. I am saying that it's not so clear-cut that the players have no basis to say they should get a percentage cut.

[SkinBasket]

Although there would be no floor, how many teams are even close to the floor now? If almost no teams ran up against the floor last year, it would suggest that the previous floor was effectively meaningless.

And that, my friend, is the result of the competitive balance that has been provided by the salary cap, draft, scheduling, etc..

Most teams enter the season believing they can at least have a shot at making the play-offs, or if not that year, then certainly by the next. That prevents the kind of dumping of salary/talent you see for years at a time in baseball and basket(*barf*)ball.

What I took from Patler's insane ranting was that you could eliminate a lot of these arguments and points of conflict if the cap wasn't tied to a percentage of total revenue. All it does is cause a massive amount of accounting to get to a number that you could be reached through simple negotiation.

[sharpe1027]

And that, my friend, is the result of the competitive balance that has been provided by the salary cap, draft, scheduling, etc..

Most teams enter the season believing they can at least have a shot at making the play-offs, or if not that year, then certainly by the next. That prevents the kind of dumping of salary/talent you see for years at a time in baseball and basket(*barf*)ball.

What I took from Patler's insane ranting was that you could eliminate a lot of these arguments and points of conflict if the cap wasn't tied to a percentage of total revenue. All it does is cause a massive amount of accounting to get to a number that you could be reached through simple negotiation.

I think that makes a lot of sense about the competitive balance keeping teams from going super cheap.

As to the other point, each time they renegotiate the "fixed" salary cap, what do you think they will be arguing over? Both sides will use the total revenue, costs and the same stuff to renegotiate the "fixed" salary cap. What changes?

[swede]

...Patler's insane ranting...

Boy if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that.

[mraynrand]

As to the other point, each time they renegotiate the "fixed" salary cap, what do you think they will be arguing over? Both sides will use the total revenue, costs and the same stuff to renegotiate the "fixed" salary cap. What changes?

What the hell else would they use - the price of unsalted peanuts? This whole thing isn't that complicated. Give the players a percentage of revenue as always - negotiate that - and have the NFL and owners figure out how to punish lame-ass owners who are trying to score free cable off their roommates. Done and done. Play football!

[mraynrand]

What I took from Patler's insane ranting


Boy if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that.


http://ed101.bu.edu/StudentDoc/Archives/fall05/davidyi/dime.gif

[swede]

Good point. Thus the pitfall of not agreeing to a fixed cap for the number of nickels.

[sharpe1027]

What the hell else would they use - the price of unsalted peanuts? This whole thing isn't that complicated. Give the players a percentage of revenue as always - negotiate that - and have the NFL and owners figure out how to punish lame-ass owners who are trying to score free cable off their roommates. Done and done. Play football!

/thread

[SkinBasket]

/thread

Don't poke the bear.

[sharpe1027]

Don't poke the bear.

Can I pet the bear instead?

[Guiness]

I agree with what you said, it is consistent with what I said. There would likely be a larger disparity of wages, both between teams and between players, but the owners would likely still be paying out more overall.

Although there would be no floor, how many teams are even close to the floor now? If almost no teams ran up against the floor last year, it would suggest that the previous floor was effectively meaningless.

I'm not advocating for the salary cap to be removed, it would be very bad IMO. I am saying that it's not so clear-cut that the players have no basis to say they should get a percentage cut.

I thought a few teams were close, or even under, what the floor would have been last year?

[Lurker64]

I thought a few teams were close, or even under, what the floor would have been last year?

In 2009 the Salary Floor was $110m, in 2010 the Rams, Chargers, Bills, Broncos, Bengals, Cardinals, Jaguars, Chiefs, and Buccaneers spent less than that. The Bucs actually ended up spending roughly $80m on players (less than half of what the Cowboys or Redskins spent).

[Brandon494]

Fuck the owners!

The owners arent the ones that entertain me every sunday, they don't risk their bodies every snap, and they don't take years off their life by playing the game that we all love. These guys are the best athletes in the world and have made this the best sport in the country. NFL has been growing in revenue and popularity every year and now they want to cut the players salaries by 18%? Just another case of the rich being greedy. Just add a rookie salary cap and lets get these guys back on the field.

[Tony Oday]

Cap the total compensation per team to 52 million...fuck the players they dont build shit!

hehe

Really fuck them both, be adults and sign a damn agreement!

[Lurker64]

I don't think anybody is proposing cutting salaries. The NFL's proposal includes a salary cap that is more than any previous salary cap, and it grows every single year. It may not be as high as the players want, and it may not grow as much as the players want, but saying the NFL wants to cut players salaries is frankly ridiculous.

A reduction in the projected rate of increase is not a cut. Cutting something means making it less than it was. Nobody is proposing anything of the sort.

After the NHL lockout when the players agreed to an across the board reduction of the remaining value of existing contracts, that was a cut.

[Tony Oday]

I don't think anybody is proposing cutting salaries. The NFL's proposal includes a salary cap that is more than any previous salary cap, and it grows every single year. It may not be as high as the players want, and it may not grow as much as the players want, but saying the NFL wants to cut players salaries is frankly ridiculous.

A reduction in the projected rate of increase is not a cut. Cutting something means making it less than it was. Nobody is proposing anything of the sort.

After the NHL lockout when the players agreed to an across the board reduction of the remaining value of existing contracts, that was a cut.

It is if you talk to school districts...our budget didnt go up by what we thought its a cut!!!

[SkinBasket]

Fuck the owners!

The owners arent the ones that entertain me every sunday, they don't risk their bodies every snap, and they don't take years off their life by playing the game that we all love. These guys are the best athletes in the world and have made this the best sport in the country. NFL has been growing in revenue and popularity every year and now they want to cut the players salaries by 18%? Just another case of the rich being greedy. Just add a rookie salary cap and lets get these guys back on the field.

E-mail the owner of the business which employs you your ideas on ownership tomorrow. Should be a wonderful discussion.

In the meantime, work on your math fool.

[Deputy Nutz]

Skin, you need to talk to your manager.

[Lurker64]

It is if you talk to school districts...our budget didnt go up by what we thought its a cut!!!

Well, it's disingenuous when people do this politically, but even so it's more appropriate to refer to cuts in that context than in this one. School districts budget many things well in advance, and having a shortfall can be problematic. Considering that NFL players are running out of money this offseason and they don't even get paid in the offseason in a normal year, I'm convinced that NFL players don't budget for next week let alone next year.

It's honestly only the union leadership that honestly cares that much about "the salary cap isn't going up quickly enough" the only real reason to be upset is to be upset in principle. For most folks "hey, you're going to be getting more money and better benefits under the next collective bargaining agreement" is a fairly desirable outcome.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, you need to talk to your manager.

What's with all the cock jokes?

[bobblehead]

Fuck the owners!

The owners arent the ones that entertain me every sunday, they don't risk their bodies every snap, and they don't take years off their life by playing the game that we all love. These guys are the best athletes in the world and have made this the best sport in the country. NFL has been growing in revenue and popularity every year and now they want to cut the players salaries by 18%? Just another case of the rich being greedy. Just add a rookie salary cap and lets get these guys back on the field.

At some point you have to concede that the owners are the ones making it possible for you to SEE those studs compete and bust their asses for you to watch and enjoy.

The owner of Wendy's doesn't cook the burger either, but s/he negotiates the deals that get the cow killed, ground and delivered to your local store. The franchise built the model to follow. The builders built the building its sold in....so in conclusion, most of the profits should go to the guy who threw it on the grill.

[Brandon494]

Any average joe can cook burgers and cooking burgers doesnt take years off your life. Millions of people don't crowd around TVs and fill stadiums every Sunday to watch someone grill a burger. I see what your trying to say but it's apples and oranges.

[retailguy]

Any average joe can cook burgers and cooking burgers doesnt take years off your life. Millions of people don't crowd around TVs and fill stadiums every Sunday to watch someone grill a burger. I see what your trying to say but it's apples and oranges.

HOW?

The player doesn't get the chance to make millions and "shorten his life", if the owners hadn't built the business. Good grief, do you even have a job?

[Brandon494]

Yea they build the business but without these players where the fuck would these owners be? You can't just hire some random fuck off the street to do what these guys do. That's how its different then flipping some burgers. Do you have a job? I want to see how you would react if you were making your business millions in revenue every year and they wanted to cut your pay even though your making them more money year after year. There is a reason we watch the NFL instead of arena football, and it's not because of the owners.

[Tony Oday]

Yea they build the business but without these players where the fuck would these owners be? You can't just hire some random fuck off the street to do what these guys do. That's how its different then flipping some burgers. Do you have a job? I want to see how you would react if you were making your business millions in revenue every year and they wanted to cut your pay even though your making them more money year after year. There is a reason we watch the NFL instead of arena football, and it's not because of the owners.

Get a PHD in Physics off the street, so on and so on. I can tell you EXACTLY how it feels to do more and more and get my pay capped. I own a mortgage brokerage and the government just capped what I can make. The pie is still the same size just a larger portion go to the banks.

You keep saying shorten their lives...well yeah they do that is the trade off for making millions. Want a longer life teach 3rd grade and get your summers off.

[Brandon494]

That sounds like a personal problem that has nothing to do with why these players should have to take a paycut.

[Tony Oday]

No you stated that we wouldnt know what it was like I said I do. The players are employees or at least independent contractors. I would CUT pay across the board and tie the amount you get paid to the games you win.

[Brandon494]

Sorry but that's a horrible idea

[Tony Oday]

Why? They are paid to win, dont win dont get paid.

[Brandon494]

You have to factor in injuries though. You lose your starting QB first game of the season and that fucks up the whole team's wallet. All we need is a rookie salary cap and everything else should be kept the same unless the owners can prove they are losing money. It's a reason they don't want to show their books.

[ThunderDan]

At some point you have to concede that the owners are the ones making it possible for you to SEE those studs compete and bust their asses for you to watch and enjoy.

The owner of Wendy's doesn't cook the burger either, but s/he negotiates the deals that get the cow killed, ground and delivered to your local store. The franchise built the model to follow. The builders built the building its sold in....so in conclusion, most of the profits should go to the guy who threw it on the grill.

I understand where you are coming from but I think you are missing one important issue.

There are some jobs that require skill sets that few poeple can actually learn. No matter how hard you try you can't take a 5'10", 180lb man and stick him in at OT in the NFL.

You see this in surgeons, entertainers, athletes, artisans etc...

[mraynrand]

That sounds like a personal problem that has nothing to do with why these players should have to take a paycut.


Where did you ever get the notion that the players were going to have to take a paycut?

[mraynrand]

At some point you have to concede that the owners are the ones making it possible for you to SEE those studs compete and bust their asses for you to watch and enjoy.

The owner of Wendy's doesn't cook the burger either, but s/he negotiates the deals that get the cow killed, ground and delivered to your local store. The franchise built the model to follow. The builders built the building its sold in....so in conclusion, most of the profits should go to the guy who threw it on the grill.


I like your view, but I would modify it in this way. The players are like performers in Vegas. Sure, you could go somewhere else to see guys like Tony Bennett, etc. sing the hits, but you go to Vegas because it's glitzy, there's gambling, etc. The Hotel owners invest in the product and use guys like Tony Bennett as a draw. They pay him better than Joe Shmoe because he's better and has a following, but if the guy copped an attitude, they could get someone else and people would still show up. Jerry Jones wold be the guy who builds the massive pyramid and attracts huge crowds. He still does really well, but the Bill's owner would be the guy who builds a pretty basic hotel/casino and benefits from all the traffic Jones brings in - plus he doesn't have to pay the taxes Jones does. Bottom line: The owners build up the structure for the product on the field, and the players represent the best you can put on the field. They can be replaced, but not at the same level. Not only are they better than the next tier of players, but they have their own style and personality that would be missed until the next generation of players becomes known. That's why they should make more than the burger-flippers - and they do. Problem is, that too many of them want Tony Bennett and Wayne Newton compensation, when they're only performing at a Robert Goulet or Steve and Eydie Gorme level.

[sharpe1027]

The two sides disagree on the amount of money they should get. Everything thing is just a variation of this theme. Percentages, no percentages, salary cap, free agency, benefits, guaranteed expense budgeting, all just about how much money each side gets. Who is right? Both and neither. Who has the morale high ground? Both and neither.

You can argue about how the players are due because they are the product we pay to see. You can argue about how the owners are due because, well, they own the team and spur investment. Both points are correct, which is why they both get paid a crap ton of money. In the end, it's just how much money each side can get from the other. No more, no less.

[Lurker64]

All we need is a rookie salary cap and everything else should be kept the same unless the owners can prove they are losing money. It's a reason they don't want to show their books.

The problem is that once the 8th Circuit rules to rescind the injunction enjoining the lockout is "everything else should be kept the same" is entirely out the window. Once the 8th circuit preserves the lockout, the owners have leverage and what's the point of acquiring leverage if you're going to do it? Putting economic pressure on the parties you're negotiating with until they agree with you is a tried and true substitute for facts in labor negotiations. After all, most strikes are justified by "unfairness" which is something that can't be easily quantified.

So in terms of "old system with a rookie wage scale"? It's just not happening, and after the 8th Circuit rules the NFL will most likely have leverage, which means that the onus will be on the players to come to compromise so that a deal can get done. Remember, that the owners have moved on a lot of issues, while the players have moved on none. If the players are unwilling to move on any of the key issues now or after the 8th circuit rules, then we're missing football this year.

[ThunderDan]

The problem is that once the 8th Circuit rules to rescind the injunction enjoining the lockout is "everything else should be kept the same" is entirely out the window. Once the 8th circuit preserves the lockout, the owners have leverage and what's the point of acquiring leverage if you're going to do it? Putting economic pressure on the parties you're negotiating with until they agree with you is a tried and true substitute for facts in labor negotiations. After all, most strikes are justified by "unfairness" which is something that can't be easily quantified.

So in terms of "old system with a rookie wage scale"? It's just not happening, and after the 8th Circuit rules the NFL will most likely have leverage, which means that the onus will be on the players to come to compromise so that a deal can get done. Remember, that the owners have moved on a lot of issues, while the players have moved on none. If the players are unwilling to move on any of the key issues now or after the 8th circuit rules, then we're missing football this year.

Except then the MN judge will rule to keep the TV monies in escrow. At which point, HOPEFULLY, both sides will realize that they are in a no-win situation except to go back to the bargaining table and sit down and get this taken care of.

Goodell and Smith both need to shut up and get to work. As much "fun" as it is to call the other side out for being assholes. It really is counter-productive.

[ThunderDan]

The two sides disagree on the amount of money they should get. Everything thing is just a variation of this theme. Percentages, no percentages, salary cap, free agency, benefits, guaranteed expense budgeting, all just about how much money each side gets. Who is right? Both and neither. Who has the morale high ground? Both and neither.

You can argue about how the players are due because they are the product we pay to see. You can argue about how the owners are due because, well, they own the team and spur investment. Both points are correct, which is why they both get paid a crap ton of money. In the end, it's just how much money each side can get from the other. No more, no less.

The quicker both sides figure out that they can't live without the other the faster the deal gets done.

[Lurker64]

Except then the MN judge will rule to keep the TV monies in escrow. At which point, HOPEFULLY, both sides will realize that they are in a no-win situation except to go back to the bargaining table and sit down and get this taken care of.

Goodell and Smith both need to shut up and get to work. As much "fun" as it is to call the other side out for being assholes. It really is counter-productive.

The league can afford to sit out a lot longer without those TV monies than the players can, and just the point is that since the leverage of the lockout is unlikely to be lifted by the courts any time this year, the onus is on the players to move closer to the owners, not the other way around. If the NFLPA* leadership doesn't see this, and decides to try to pursue alternative litigation strategies to acquire leverage we are going to miss part of (or all of) the upcoming season.

Best play for the NFLPA now is to take whatever the best terms they can get out of the NFL in the next month or so, and if it's so bad for them they should strike somewhere down the line.

[swede]

Best play for the NFLPA now is to take whatever the best terms they can get out of the NFL ...and if it's so bad for them they should strike somewhere down the line.

Wait...I thought you had to be a union in order to strike.

[Deputy Nutz]

Yea they build the business but without these players where the fuck would these owners be? You can't just hire some random fuck off the street to do what these guys do. That's how its different then flipping some burgers. Do you have a job? I want to see how you would react if you were making your business millions in revenue every year and they wanted to cut your pay even though your making them more money year after year. There is a reason we watch the NFL instead of arena football, and it's not because of the owners.

You really don't understand comparisons very well, do you?

[Deputy Nutz]

Fuck the owners!

The owners arent the ones that entertain me every sunday, they don't risk their bodies every snap, and they don't take years off their life by playing the game that we all love. These guys are the best athletes in the world and have made this the best sport in the country. NFL has been growing in revenue and popularity every year and now they want to cut the players salaries by 18%? Just another case of the rich being greedy. Just add a rookie salary cap and lets get these guys back on the field.

There are a lot of jobs out there that shorten the lives of the people that perform them and also hamper their quality of living, but guess what? You don't hear them bitching and complaining about their shorten life span and they make peanuts compared to professional football players. If you want me to list these job I will but I think you are smart enough to brain storm what occupations could be considered a hazard to an employees life quality.

There are a lot of reasons to support the players but whinnng about their lives and shorter life expectancy shouldn't be one of them. I played the game for twelve years, I am 32 years old and my body is all fucked up because of football and I have been out of it for almost 10 years. I never got paid a nickel but I ain't gonna complain about the sport I love when I get a hip replacement and a knee replacement ten years from now, that is just fucking life I would change it even if I could.

[Brandon494]

There are a lot of jobs out there that shorten the lives of the people that perform them and also hamper their quality of living, but guess what? You don't hear them bitching and complaining about their shorten life span and they make peanuts compared to professional football players. If you want me to list these job I will but I think you are smart enough to brain storm what occupations could be considered a hazard to an employees life quality.

There are a lot of reasons to support the players but whinnng about their lives and shorter life expectancy shouldn't be one of them. I played the game for twelve years, I am 32 years old and my body is all fucked up because of football and I have been out of it for almost 10 years. I never got paid a nickel but I ain't gonna complain about the sport I love when I get a hip replacement and a knee replacement ten years from now, that is just fucking life I would change it even if I could.

Just because they dont "bitch" about it doesnt make it right. Every season a player spends on an NFL roster, his life expectancy decreases by almost three years. The average American male lives to be almost 75. An NFL player, whose career lasts roughly four years on average, lives to be 55. I as well played the game for 10 years but neither of us played at the NFL level when you have 300 pound guys who can run 4.6 40s. Also did you play football as your job? Why would you be complaining about getting paid a nickel when you didnt get paid to play in the first place.

[Brandon494]

You really don't understand comparisons very well, do you?

I understand fine, that was just an shitty comparison. Kinda like you comparing playing high school football to the NFL.

[Freak Out]

I never got paid a nickel but I ain't gonna complain about the sport I love when I get a hip replacement and a knee replacement ten years from now, that is just fucking life I would change it even if I could.

Fuck you motherlicker. I'm going to complain because I'll be paying for it along with all the other hard working Americans that pay taxes......just so you freeloader football player types that end up on welfare can get medical treatment.

[bobblehead]

Any average joe can cook burgers and cooking burgers doesnt take years off your life. Millions of people don't crowd around TVs and fill stadiums every Sunday to watch someone grill a burger. I see what your trying to say but it's apples and oranges.

I would argue that more people enjoy burgers than the NFL. I would also argue that if every active member of an NFL team died tomorrow they would be replaced and the league would barely miss a beat. However if the owners and architects of the NFL died it would hurt lots. If every TEAM that people have bonded to over the past 50+ years were disassembled and the league had to start anew the popularity would suffer immensely. Players come and go but the Packers endure....just ask bert.

As far as taking years off your life, I play ball for free twice a week. I wish I were talented enough to play pro. I would choose to....key word choice. Any NFL player can choose a career that is less damaging. Don't misunderstand, I want the league to do everything possible to keep players safe, and I want players well compensated; however we aren't talking about them not being payed vs. making a milliion....we are talking about 7 or 8 million.

[bobblehead]

You have to factor in injuries though. You lose your starting QB first game of the season and that fucks up the whole team's wallet. All we need is a rookie salary cap and everything else should be kept the same unless the owners can prove they are losing money. It's a reason they don't want to show their books.

The union decertified....you don't get to have everything as it was before. Now we are going for a free for all....with no rookie cap.

[bobblehead]

I understand where you are coming from but I think you are missing one important issue.

There are some jobs that require skill sets that few poeple can actually learn. No matter how hard you try you can't take a 5'10", 180lb man and stick him in at OT in the NFL.

You see this in surgeons, entertainers, athletes, artisans etc...

First, I disagree with the entertainers. Hundreds of thousands of guys could act in "two and a half men" but only a handful have created the show and write it.

You are wrong, I could play OT in the NFL....poorly. What if I started a 5' 10" and under league? Could a guy 6' sue me to play? Is it my LEAGUE or my FRANCHISE. If its a league you must allow me to set rules to make the league successful. Limiting guys by their height would seem to be an anti trust issue the way the courts have ruled so far.

You have said in the past that you own an accounting firm. What if the employees found a judge that said you had to allow them 59% of your profits? You wouldn't like it I'm betting. Whats that you say? You can find other accountants? The NFL can find other players and the talent difference would barely be noticeable to the naked eye. Moreover, within 4-5 years the top players would again be in the league.

Lets be honest, if you are going to treat the NFL as a full fledged free for all there will no longer be a draft. There will be no minimum salary. There will be no rules governing what can or can not be put into a contract. Hundreds of players will lose a TON of money while a few stars will make more. Greedy owners will make MORE money and pay LESS in total salaries than they do now. Star players will get MUCH better health care than lesser players.

The thing that kills me about the liberals position in all this is that they somehow want the best of both worlds. They want a system where the OWNERS have to play by certain rules, but the players do not. In the end, either BOTH sides have to agree to a CBA or there will be NO rules. If there is no CBA then you can't possibly intelligently argue that somehow the owners should still be required to pay any more than they choose. Bottom of the roster guys will have minimum contracts with team options as far as the eye can see. No roster size limits. A guy like Tramon who had limited interest coming out will NEVER get paid. They will be forced to sign an exclusive contract with whichever team offers them a shit lifetime deal. On the other hand guys like Ryan Leaf will still get millions.

Lets face reality, you guys don't actually want a true free market for the labor of players, you want greedy owners to be forced to pay what you think is "fair" for the talent. You want the previous CBA continued even though the union decertified. You want the owners to be forced to follow anti trust rules, but at the same time follow rules negotiated for the benefit of the league (players and all) as a whole. In short, you want them to follow the rules that you think are fair, but not the ones that harm the employees. Got news for you, they didn't create the NFL (or any business) under altruistic intentions. They do it for money.

What needs to happen is that the (not)union and the owners need to get together and work our a deal. If the players decide to attempt hardball they WILL LOSE. If we go free for all again and the league begins fielding scabs, many talented players will return in a hurry. Within a season we will forget about the guys who are still on strike. We will be cheering for "hehateme". Spencer Havner Jerseys will fly off the shelf. We won't recall Tony Gonzalez. Guys coming out of college with the prospect of making 100k to play LT or 14k to flip burgers won't fret long over choosing which way to go. Another league may or may not open to compete with the NFL, but we won't associate with the NJ Generals the way we do with the NY Giants. Face it, the owners have created a product we demand.....Charles Woodson is and will be replaced.

[MJZiggy]

At some point you have to concede that the owners are the ones making it possible for you to SEE those studs compete and bust their asses for you to watch and enjoy.

The owner of Wendy's doesn't cook the burger either, but s/he negotiates the deals that get the cow killed, ground and delivered to your local store. The franchise built the model to follow. The builders built the building its sold in....so in conclusion, most of the profits should go to the guy who threw it on the grill.

First things first. I know we all like a good burger, but don't like thinking about how it gets on the plate. Ew.

[MJZiggy]

Get a PHD in Physics off the street, so on and so on. I can tell you EXACTLY how it feels to do more and more and get my pay capped. I own a mortgage brokerage and the government just capped what I can make. The pie is still the same size just a larger portion go to the banks.

You keep saying shorten their lives...well yeah they do that is the trade off for making millions. Want a longer life teach 3rd grade and get your summers off.

Second, banks are evil. You've never taught elementary school, have you? Those little buggers'll tear you limb from limb if they get the chance. They only look innocent. It's all an act.

[get louder at lambeau]

Just because they dont "bitch" about it doesnt make it right. Every season a player spends on an NFL roster, his life expectancy decreases by almost three years. The average American male lives to be almost 75. An NFL player, whose career lasts roughly four years on average, lives to be 55.

Those are some interesting numbers. They don't add up though. If the difference between average life expectancies is 20 years different, and the average length of career is about 4 years, it would be 5 years less per year on an NFL roster- much more than what you claim.

You got a link to this stuff?

[Lurker64]

Just because they dont "bitch" about it doesnt make it right. Every season a player spends on an NFL roster, his life expectancy decreases by almost three years. The average American male lives to be almost 75. An NFL player, whose career lasts roughly four years on average, lives to be 55.

The average NFL offensive lineman or defensive tackle is more than 300 lbs, and is likely classified as obese (or morbidly obese) by the BMI scale. Just being that size will lower your life expectancy similarly dramatically. You don't see a lot of 300+ lb people who live to be 75.

Also, correlation is not causation. Years of physical abuse in football were not responsible for the auto-accidents that killed Derrick Thomas or Wayne Simmons. Who's to say how many NFL players die young because of a lifestyle of risk-taking whose only relationship with having played football is that said recklessness was enabled by the money earned by playing football?

Also, when calculating the median lifespan of an NFL player, if that number is around 55 years, then we're talking about guys who were playing football over 30 years ago. A lot of advancements in terms of player safety and medical care have been made in the last 30 years. To say that the life expectancy of modern players is lowered because guys used to play in leather helmets and nobody took them out of the game after they got a concussion is somewhat disingenuous.

[Smidgeon]

Second, banks are evil. You've never taught elementary school, have you? Those little buggers'll tear you limb from limb if they get the chance. They only look innocent. It's all an act.

The bankers or the elementary schools?

[Deputy Nutz]

Just because they dont "bitch" about it doesnt make it right. Every season a player spends on an NFL roster, his life expectancy decreases by almost three years. The average American male lives to be almost 75. An NFL player, whose career lasts roughly four years on average, lives to be 55. I as well played the game for 10 years but neither of us played at the NFL level when you have 300 pound guys who can run 4.6 40s. Also did you play football as your job? Why would you be complaining about getting paid a nickel when you didnt get paid to play in the first place.


Can you comprehend what you read? I didn't say, "I am complaining about not making money", I said " I never got paid a nickel but I ain't gonna complain about the sport I love..." There was no money paid to a college athletes, I didn't go to USC. If they are worried about their lives, they shouldn't play football at the NFL level. That is not hard to comprehend. They get paid more in those 4 years that you mentioned then most of the American working people make in a life time. Apparently I do have to mention the people that work in coal mines, soldiers that protect our country for less than 23,000 dollars a year, farmers, fire fighters, Steelworkers, crab fishermen.... they make the money that they are paid and go to work each day and amazingly enough they don't have fans that feel sorry for them.

1% of the players in the NFL that weigh 300 plus pounds can run a 4.6. I would trust my own judgement and say their is not a 300 pound guy in the NFL that run a 4.6. I did play college football against guys that were 300 pounds though. I also played against guys that were in the NFL. I don't really know what that has to do with anything but these guys are living a lot of peoples dreams mine included. Mark Schlreath said it on ESPN, that he would have done just about anything to make an NFL roster and he sacrificed his body numberous times to do it, it wasn't for the paycheck for him it was his dream. Like I said their is a number of reasons for fans to support the players, but they get an actual paycheck for a game they play, sounds like a hell of a deal to me.

Their life expectancy simply has nothing to do with this, because if that was important to them then they should have actually graduated college, and would have never played the sport. My regard to my playing days was to point the fact that I do know what these guys go through to play the game and that I understood the sacrifices made, not comparing(again you fail at compairsons) my playing level to that of the NFL players. I have gone through several surgeries and several more rehabs because of football and it wasn't even to get a paycheck, it was simply chasing a dream and playing for the love of the game.

[Deputy Nutz]

The average NFL offensive lineman or defensive tackle is more than 300 lbs, and is likely classified as obese (or morbidly obese) by the BMI scale. Just being that size will lower your life expectancy similarly dramatically. You don't see a lot of 300+ lb people who live to be 75.

Also, correlation is not causation. Years of physical abuse in football were not responsible for the auto-accidents that killed Derrick Thomas or Wayne Simmons. Who's to say how many NFL players die young because of a lifestyle of risk-taking whose only relationship with having played football is that said recklessness was enabled by the money earned by playing football?

Also, when calculating the median lifespan of an NFL player, if that number is around 55 years, then we're talking about guys who were playing football over 30 years ago. A lot of advancements in terms of player safety and medical care have been made in the last 30 years. To say that the life expectancy of modern players is lowered because guys used to play in leather helmets and nobody took them out of the game after they got a concussion is somewhat disingenuous.

To go along Brandon's theory, Brett Favre should have been dead sometime after his 13th year in the league.

[SkinBasket]

it was simply chasing a dream and playing for the love of the game.

And strippers.

[sharpe1027]

You have said in the past that you own an accounting firm. What if the employees found a judge that said you had to allow them 59% of your profits? You wouldn't like it I'm betting. Whats that you say? You can find other accountants? The NFL can find other players and the talent difference would barely be noticeable to the naked eye. Moreover, within 4-5 years the top players would again be in the league.

What judge is saying this? I don't think the players are even asking the judge to do this. Seems like a strawman argument. A closer analogy would be: What if you had an agreement to pay your employees a certain amount and when the agreement ended you disagreed about the amount for the next agreement? What if you then got all the top accounting firms in the industry to collectively refuse to pay their employees?



Lets face reality, you guys don't actually want a true free market for the labor of players, you want greedy owners to be forced to pay what you think is "fair" for the talent. You want the previous CBA continued even though the union decertified. You want the owners to be forced to follow anti trust rules, but at the same time follow rules negotiated for the benefit of the league (players and all) as a whole. In short, you want them to follow the rules that you think are fair, but not the ones that harm the employees. Got news for you, they didn't create the NFL (or any business) under altruistic intentions. They do it for money.

Has anyone said they want a true free market? Most posters seem to think that is a very bad idea. Seems like another strawman argument.


What needs to happen is that the (not)union and the owners need to get together and work our a deal. If the players decide to attempt hardball they WILL LOSE. If we go free for all again and the league begins fielding scabs, many talented players will return in a hurry. Within a season we will forget about the guys who are still on strike. We will be cheering for "hehateme". Spencer Havner Jerseys will fly off the shelf. We won't recall Tony Gonzalez. Guys coming out of college with the prospect of making 100k to play LT or 14k to flip burgers won't fret long over choosing which way to go. Another league may or may not open to compete with the NFL, but we won't associate with the NJ Generals the way we do with the NY Giants. Face it, the owners have created a product we demand.....Charles Woodson is and will be replaced.

If either side plays hardball, both sides will lose. IMO, it's pretty simple, they disagree about the final dollar amount. There is probably a point at which even you would think the players were entitled to more money. What if they were making minimum wage? Would you agree that they would be justified in asking for more? If you would, then you agree in principle to what the players are doing now, you just disagree about the dollar amount.

[bobblehead]

What judge is saying this? I don't think the players are even asking the judge to do this. Seems like a strawman argument. A closer analogy would be: What if you had an agreement to pay your employees a certain amount and when the agreement ended you disagreed about the amount for the next agreement? What if you then got all the top accounting firms in the industry to collectively refuse to pay their employees?



Has anyone said they want a true free market? Most posters seem to think that is a very bad idea. Seems like another strawman argument.



If either side plays hardball, both sides will lose. IMO, it's pretty simple, they disagree about the final dollar amount. There is probably a point at which even you would think the players were entitled to more money. What if they were making minimum wage? Would you agree that they would be justified in asking for more? If you would, then you agree in principle to what the players are doing now, you just disagree about the dollar amount.

The players and most fans seem to think that if a judge ends the lockout that somehow we will return to the previous CBA....that is not the case, the owners voided the CBA and the players decertified. It has zero bearing on the future. This is nothing like a collusion of all the top accounting firms. The CFL, arena, USFL, XFL all tried to compete with the NFL. Again, this is where a fundamental disagreement occurs. I don't view the 32 teams as competitors trying to win market share. They are ONE league trying to own market share.

As far as the true free market....no, posters want the courts to decide the rules of the market instead of the owners. My argument is anything but straw. The players (and many posters) want it both ways. No lockout, but still a collective bargaining session. It simply can't happen. Either you are a union and can be locked out and then bargain, or you are not and you have a free for all. Only 2 choices. We are not a union, but owners must negotiate with us as a whole entity (union) but not have any of the benefits of us NOT being unionized. Fun deal if you can swing it.

I also agree that both sides will lose in the short term, but long run, the owners will crush the union should it become ugly. Furthermore, I always think the players are justified in asking for more. I simply disagree as to them being able to somehow force the owners to pay a certain amount. The owners are also justified in asking for more. That is called free market. Do I think minimum wage would be fair? Talk about setting up straw man arguments. Minimum wage in the NFL right now breaks down to over 8k an hour. If you are elite its more like 300k an hour.

I have never disagreed in principle to the players asking for more. I disagree with the whole sham of decertifying and using the courts to get it instead of negotiating.

[MJZiggy]

The bankers or the elementary schools?

The bankers and the children. Vicious, all of them!!

[Deputy Nutz]

And strippers.

fuck, ya definitely strippers. Living the dream, and making it rain.

[Fritz]

Bobblehead wrote: "Lets face reality, you guys don't actually want a true free market for the labor of players, you want greedy owners to be forced to pay what you think is "fair" for the talent. You want the previous CBA continued even though the union decertified. You want the owners to be forced to follow anti trust rules, but at the same time follow rules negotiated for the benefit of the league (players and all) as a whole. In short, you want them to follow the rules that you think are fair, but not the ones that harm the employees. Got news for you, they didn't create the NFL (or any business) under altruistic intentions. They do it for money."

Why does everyone have such a problem with the players banding together to bargain, but very few people seem willing to acknowledge that the owners have banded together, too? Why is that okay?

You all want a real free market economy? Okay, let's have no players union. Let's let players decide when they want to go to work for their paychecks - and let's let them try to get a job with any owner they want to. And the owners can pay as much or little as they want to for players. Oh, and there's no single TV contract. Each team can negotiate its own contract and keep the revenue. After all, the owners' current TV contract system is as close to Marxism as anything I've ever seen - from each according to ability, to each according to need. Oh, and if it's a real free market, then no taxpayer handouts for stadiums.

So Cam Newton or Jake Locker or any player can negotiate with any or as many teams as he'd like, and can sign for whatever the two sides can agree to. The players could work anywhere they want - no draft, cuz it's going to be like the "real world" so many of you like to talk about when complaining about how easy the players have it. And of course, no salary cap would be imposed - why let the owners work together and make rules together if you don't want the players to?

Then how would the NFL look?

I absolutely do not understand why so many people pretend the owners are operating under free market rules when they're not even close to that.

[packrat]

Rules are what keep the NFL competitive. Without a salary cap, and without shared revenue, no Green Bay Packers. TV would not pay much for the Green Bay market and team doesn't have rich owners who could compete with the owners in the New York or San Francisco market. It the NFL was no longer competitive, with a couple of teams dominating every year because they were the only ones that could afford the superstars, NFL would become less popular and TV revenue would decline and all players would be worse off as there would be less money to pay them. As a practical matter, as arrogant and irritating as the owners are, someone has to finance and organize the league. Without owners, the players, starting as college grads with no money and with their short career spans aren't going to be able to create a league with stadiums and the organizational structure needed to maintain the NFL.

[Tony Oday]

Owners are Evil White Conservatives that must be destroyed and their wealth redistributed...DUH!

The Green Bay wouldnt be competative argument is bullshit. Now if you said Buffalo I would agree!

I hope the players go broke and have to crawl back to their employers. They have been treated with kid gloves their entire lives and have received whatever they have wanted, well you petulant little kids time to go into time out and maybe get grounded! The people really hurt by this are the Business staffs of NFL teams.

[ThunderDan]

First, I disagree with the entertainers. Hundreds of thousands of guys could act in "two and a half men" but only a handful have created the show and write it.

You are wrong, I could play OT in the NFL....poorly. What if I started a 5' 10" and under league? Could a guy 6' sue me to play? Is it my LEAGUE or my FRANCHISE. If its a league you must allow me to set rules to make the league successful. Limiting guys by their height would seem to be an anti trust issue the way the courts have ruled so far.

You have said in the past that you own an accounting firm. What if the employees found a judge that said you had to allow them 59% of your profits? You wouldn't like it I'm betting. Whats that you say? You can find other accountants? The NFL can find other players and the talent difference would barely be noticeable to the naked eye. Moreover, within 4-5 years the top players would again be in the league.

Lets be honest, if you are going to treat the NFL as a full fledged free for all there will no longer be a draft. There will be no minimum salary. There will be no rules governing what can or can not be put into a contract. Hundreds of players will lose a TON of money while a few stars will make more. Greedy owners will make MORE money and pay LESS in total salaries than they do now. Star players will get MUCH better health care than lesser players.

The thing that kills me about the liberals position in all this is that they somehow want the best of both worlds. They want a system where the OWNERS have to play by certain rules, but the players do not. In the end, either BOTH sides have to agree to a CBA or there will be NO rules. If there is no CBA then you can't possibly intelligently argue that somehow the owners should still be required to pay any more than they choose. Bottom of the roster guys will have minimum contracts with team options as far as the eye can see. No roster size limits. A guy like Tramon who had limited interest coming out will NEVER get paid. They will be forced to sign an exclusive contract with whichever team offers them a shit lifetime deal. On the other hand guys like Ryan Leaf will still get millions.

Lets face reality, you guys don't actually want a true free market for the labor of players, you want greedy owners to be forced to pay what you think is "fair" for the talent. You want the previous CBA continued even though the union decertified. You want the owners to be forced to follow anti trust rules, but at the same time follow rules negotiated for the benefit of the league (players and all) as a whole. In short, you want them to follow the rules that you think are fair, but not the ones that harm the employees. Got news for you, they didn't create the NFL (or any business) under altruistic intentions. They do it for money.

What needs to happen is that the (not)union and the owners need to get together and work our a deal. If the players decide to attempt hardball they WILL LOSE. If we go free for all again and the league begins fielding scabs, many talented players will return in a hurry. Within a season we will forget about the guys who are still on strike. We will be cheering for "hehateme". Spencer Havner Jerseys will fly off the shelf. We won't recall Tony Gonzalez. Guys coming out of college with the prospect of making 100k to play LT or 14k to flip burgers won't fret long over choosing which way to go. Another league may or may not open to compete with the NFL, but we won't associate with the NJ Generals the way we do with the NY Giants. Face it, the owners have created a product we demand.....Charles Woodson is and will be replaced.

I've tried to answer twice but I keep getting timed out.

What it comes down to is this. I will not pay for a shitty product. As much as you think I would keep my season tickets if you played in the NFL you are wrong. If the product put on the field is bad I will drop my tickets, even at the mighty Lambeau field.

What is with this "liberal" crap? The NFL is a government protected industry. The players are asking for more of a free market capitalistic style of employment. The owners are trying to keep the status quo.

And who is this "you guys"? When have I ever stated what I want out of this?

I have done enough work with mergers/labor negotiation as a CPA that I realize how good deals are made. What the NFL and NFLPA are doing right now is counter-productive. Both sides are waiting for the courts to hopefully put them in a stronger postion. Neither side wants the judge to deside what is going to happen in the future. Both sides are posturing to make the other look bad. Trust me the NFLPA doesn't want a completely free market industry but they are using it to taint the owners.

As for what I want, I want the owners and players to sit down and agree to a new CBA. IF the owners can show a reason for an additional $1,000,000,000 addback I am all for it. I like the NFL and how it runs. I don't want a free market system.

Don't lump me with "you guys" again.

[mraynrand]

I like the NFL and how it runs. I don't want a free market system.

I agree with the first, and disagree with the second. The First doesn't have to be at the expense of the second, so long as the NFL is one business entity. Let the players be free to form or join another league. Let cities and stadiums be free to sign one team from league A and/or league B. IF the owner builds his own stadium, the government should have nothing to say about it. Screw anti-trust. If one league is dominant, it's up to the other leagues to find a way to be competitive - like the AFL did. But within a league, you have to have rules that ensure reasonable competition or the product - competitive football, where any team has a chance to win - will suck, as we know from countless examples. You also have to find a way to keep owners happy who fork out a ton of their own money to improve the product and you need to pay the top talent, because without it, the quality of what you see on the field will diminish rapidly. The players should collectively bargain, but should tell the entrenched unions to go to hell.

[Lurker64]

I think what we mean when we say "we don't want a free market system [in football]" is that we recognize that things like the draft, the franchise tag, the salary cap/floor, and restricted free agency are good for the game in contrast to an NFL where there everybody without a contract (including college football players) is a free agent and teams can spend as much or as little as they want.

If the USFL, the XFL, and the AFL want to try to compete with the NFL, that's entirely fine by me.

[SkinBasket]

IF the owners can show a reason for an additional $1,000,000,000 addback I am all for it. I like the NFL and how it runs. I don't want a free market system.

Why should they have to show a reason? And if you believe they should, why shouldn't the players be forced to show the owners their accounting to demonstrate a "need" or "reason" for the massive increases in pay they've seen every year?

FWIW, the "reason" you're looking for is that the owners are running a business. A business exists to make profit.

[Tarlam!]

Why should they have to show a reason? And if you believe they should, why shouldn't the players be forced to show the owners their accounting to demonstrate a "need" or "reason" for the massive increases in pay they've seen every year?

FWIW, the "reason" you're looking for is that the owners are running a business. A business exists to make profit.

It is incomprehendable to me that this needs continual championing. It is so painfully obvious, as is the benefit of revenue sharing, drafting, salary caps/floors and all the tools to ensure some type of parity. I live in a country where one of three - four clubs will win the soccer title over the next 100 years. It is fucking boring. Insanely boring! They have other tools to keep it somewhat interesting and there is no denying interational soccer is fantastic. But club soccer on a country level is pathetic.

TT took 6 years to build a champion, but started with a fucking great QB. He and MM were one interception away from a visit to the big dance three years earlier! That type of success is unheard of in soccer - barring one exception. A German team Kaiserslautern won the championship after gaining 1st league status in the same season. Sort of a "last to first" story. It was about 10-12 years ago and was a sensation. It won't happen again in my lifetime and probably not my son's, if I measure how often that's happened in the history of the league.

To Rand's point; The system you suggest exists! There are no laws prohibiting leagues from operating like the AFL. It's a cost issue. One needs billions to compete with the NFL. And fraankly, as a fan, I want all the talent in one league. That may be selfish and communistic, but, I'm honest about it.

[mraynrand]

To Rand's point; The system you suggest exists! There are no laws prohibiting leagues from operating like the AFL. It's a cost issue. One needs billions to compete with the NFL. And fraankly, as a fan, I want all the talent in one league. That may be selfish and communistic, but, I'm honest about it.

That's why I see no need for antitrust exemptions or considerations. But I disagree with the billions. You have to generate a product the fans want to see. You'd need mega bucks to compete for college players, but that's assuming you wanted to go head to head. Many businesses succeed because they create/fill a niche and use that as a wedge to grow, not through exact duplication.

[mraynrand]

I think what we mean when we say "we don't want a free market system [in football]" is that we recognize that things like the draft, the franchise tag, the salary cap/floor, and restricted free agency are good for the game in contrast to an NFL where there everybody without a contract (including college football players) is a free agent and teams can spend as much or as little as they want.

If the USFL, the XFL, and the AFL want to try to compete with the NFL, that's entirely fine by me.


OK

[sharpe1027]

The players and most fans seem to think that if a judge ends the lockout that somehow we will return to the previous CBA....that is not the case, the owners voided the CBA and the players decertified. It has zero bearing on the future. This is nothing like a collusion of all the top accounting firms. The CFL, arena, USFL, XFL all tried to compete with the NFL. Again, this is where a fundamental disagreement occurs. I don't view the 32 teams as competitors trying to win market share. They are ONE league trying to own market share.

I don't know what fans or players you are talking about, but that doesn't seem to be the case on this thread. I said "top" accounting firms, not "all" accounting firms. Just like the CFL, there would be shittier accounting firms trying to compete. :) Perhaps you don't understand the analogy because you are talking about market share. The player's suit is about their salaries, just like my analogy is about the accountant's wages. Market share does not seem relevant.


As far as the true free market....no, posters want the courts to decide the rules of the market instead of the owners. My argument is anything but straw. The players (and many posters) want it both ways. No lockout, but still a collective bargaining session. It simply can't happen. Either you are a union and can be locked out and then bargain, or you are not and you have a free for all. Only 2 choices. We are not a union, but owners must negotiate with us as a whole entity (union) but not have any of the benefits of us NOT being unionized. Fun deal if you can swing it.

If they come to an agreement, can't they do pretty much what they want? The union will reform and the court case will be dropped. What makes you think otherwise?


I also agree that both sides will lose in the short term, but long run, the owners will crush the union should it become ugly. Furthermore, I always think the players are justified in asking for more. I simply disagree as to them being able to somehow force the owners to pay a certain amount.

I don't understand how they can be justified asking for more, but they can't get a "certain amount." What do you mean? If they are asking for more, then they are asking for a certain amount.


The owners are also justified in asking for more. That is called free market. Do I think minimum wage would be fair? Talk about setting up straw man arguments. Minimum wage in the NFL right now breaks down to over 8k an hour. If you are elite its more like 300k an hour.

I have never disagreed in principle to the players asking for more. I disagree with the whole sham of decertifying and using the courts to get it instead of negotiating.

You seem to not understand the point of saying minimum wage, it was to show that we all agree that the players should get paid well since they are the product and that there is some point at which they aren't getting paid enough. What makes your opinion on how much right and someone else's wrong?

[bobblehead]

A lot of points to address.

First, I don't mind the players negotiating, but they decertified and are using the courts....while at the same time attempting to negotiate. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are a union, your negotiations are bound by certain rules. If you are not a union you lose the right to collectively bargain. You can't decertify and use the courts rulings based on you not being a union as leverage in collective bargaining. Its simply not legal.

Second, I LIKE the system with the union agreeing to certain things that grow the pie. I do NOT want a free for all. I also have stated several times that I think there is a fundamental flaw in saying the 32 owners are competing and must follow anti trust regulations within their league. The NFL is the company, not the cowboys. The NFL sets the rules to grow the pie just like any franchisee.

Third, I DO understand the point about the players getting paid well to entertain us....and they are. NO ONE is trying to make the fledging millionaires get on food stamps. The point at which they are not getting paid enough is the exact point that they won't play in the NFL for the money offered....not one dollar more or less. It is NOT some arbitrary number that you think is fair, and that is my point about ME playing LT. I won't get paid much because you wont' pay me much to watch me. I wont' get paid millions because its a hazardous job, because it takes years off my life, or because its fair. I will get paid shit, because no one will pay to see a 5'10" left tackle and therefore the owners won't pay me to play it.

Fritz, the owners can band together because they represent the NFL corporation. If this wasn't the case, then they could not legally lock out anyone, and the workers from several different companies could not be unionized and negotiate en masse with all the companies. This is why the courts botched it in the past. Furthermore, if this were truly a "free market" where each team could negotiate TV contracts and such, then I would be allowed to enter said market with my team and compete....I am not, because the NFL is the company, not the dallas cowboy joneses. I also can not walk into Dan's accounting firm and begin "competing" with his accountants without his permission because its HIS company. To summarize, the owners are partners in the NFL (if this was NOT the case, then the players would have to unionize and strike (or get locked out) against each team idividually and standards would be negotiated on a team by team basis instead of an industry basis. GM doesn't have the exact union contract that Chrysler does after all).

Dan, I never said you would pay for a shitty product. I have stated many times that without an agreement, everyone loses money. My main point though is that the league will survive without the current players, however the owners will still turn a nifty profit (albeit a much smaller one) which is why its best for both sides to "get 'er done".

So, to try and make my whole point short and sweet:

The players as a union can NOT PLAY as leverage for as long as they wish. I will never say different. They will be and should be well compensated for laying it on the line for us. The owners can LOCK THEM OUT for leverage for as long as they wish. I will never say different. They should make the lions share of the profit for risking their capital and creating the demand. I will never say different. The players can NOT use the courts for leverage AS A UNION. 95% of the players will lose out if they go the court route which is why we know its a sham. The league will lose out and the fans will lose out. Long term 100% of the players will lose out. Tom Brady can leave the union and sue, and it may help him today if the courts continue to view the NFL as 32 competing businesses, but it will hurt EVERY player to come after him as the league loses popularity and money.

These are my main points. My other points are not that important. Yes, I think the owners can use scabs and crush the players, but that makes everyone a loser long term. Yes, it is my OPINION that the players get too much of the pie as things are right now. BUT, if the lockout continues, one side will blink....it will be the players before its the owners. Ultimately the owners have risked money to make money. The players perform and risk nothing for the dollars. I ALWAYS side with the risk takers, the innovators and the creators over employees because its those people that make the world go round.

Throughout history poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded - here and there, now and then - are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of society, the people slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck".

Excerpts from the notebooks of Lazarus Long (written by Robert Heinlein).

You can hate owners, Bill Gates, Sam Waldon, Steve Jobs and anyone else who improved your life if you wish. You can despise that they got really rich while enriching your life.....but you will still watch the NFL, use Windows 7, listen to your iPod, and price match your groceries all the same. You will want to bring them down....but not the things they created to make your life better. Me, I'm simply shrugging.

[sharpe1027]

A lot of points to address.

First, I don't mind the players negotiating, but they decertified and are using the courts....while at the same time attempting to negotiate. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are a union, your negotiations are bound by certain rules. If you are not a union you lose the right to collectively bargain. You can't decertify and use the courts rulings based on you not being a union as leverage in collective bargaining. Its simply not legal.

So, they come to an agreement, reform the union and then sign a collective bargaining agreement. Even the courts seem to recognize that this is an option since they are encouraging the mediation efforts. Why do you think otherwise?



You can hate owners, Bill Gates, Sam Waldon, Steve Jobs and anyone else who improved your life if you wish. You can despise that they got really rich while enriching your life.....but you will still watch the NFL, use Windows 7, listen to your iPod, and price match your groceries all the same. You will want to bring them down....but not the things they created to make your life better. Me, I'm simply shrugging.

Who despises them for getting really rich? You seem to have this view about what everyone else thinks, but I for one don't think you have a good bead on what most posters are trying to say. Can you point to why anyone is despising people for making lots of money?

It is interesting to note that neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs designed Windows 7 or the iPod, the most significant thing they did to make all their money was develop a business/marketing plan that put a premium cost on Windows 7 and the iPod so that they are more expensive for us all to buy. Smart moves that brought in a lot of money that allowed for more investment in other innovations, but just maybe they aren't as irreplaceable as all that.

[Guiness]

First, I don't mind the players negotiating, but they decertified and are using the courts....while at the same time attempting to negotiate. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are a union, your negotiations are bound by certain rules. If you are not a union you lose the right to collectively bargain. You can't decertify and use the courts rulings based on you not being a union as leverage in collective bargaining. Its simply not legal.



So, they come to an agreement, reform the union and then sign a collective bargaining agreement. Even the courts seem to recognize that this is an option since they are encouraging the mediation efforts. Why do you think otherwise?


That seems like the pink elephant in the room to me as well.

Not a union, being encouraged to collectively bargain...with no one representing the players to sign a theoretical agreement they come to.

What? Reform the union? Well, wasn't it really there all along then...especially if they were bargaining as a unit???

[Lurker64]

I think everybody realizes that the NFLPA is still operating as union. They just want to avoid saying this where the NLRB might hear them.

[bobblehead]

So, they come to an agreement, reform the union and then sign a collective bargaining agreement. Even the courts seem to recognize that this is an option since they are encouraging the mediation efforts. Why do you think otherwise?



Who despises them for getting really rich? You seem to have this view about what everyone else thinks, but I for one don't think you have a good bead on what most posters are trying to say. Can you point to why anyone is despising people for making lots of money?

It is interesting to note that neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs designed Windows 7 or the iPod, the most significant thing they did to make all their money was develop a business/marketing plan that put a premium cost on Windows 7 and the iPod so that they are more expensive for us all to buy. Smart moves that brought in a lot of money that allowed for more investment in other innovations, but just maybe they aren't as irreplaceable as all that.

I never said that Jobs designed the iPod and I never said that Jerry Jones takes a snap at the line of scrimmage. That is kinda my point, the grunts on the ground are replaceable, but the guys with a vision AND the committment to that vision that makes them risk everything for your benefit (and their own) are anything but. If Tom Brady blows out a knee and Matt Cassell comes in to play, the NFL doesn't lose popularity or viewers. They are both merely employees who are benefitting from this thing called the NFL.

[swede]

Hell, I used to waste entire Sundays watching guys like Dave Roller, Jim Carter, Mike Hunt, and Jim Del Gaizo play football. Somehow we survived their passing from the game.

[bobblehead]

Hell, I used to waste entire Sundays watching guys like Dave Roller, Jim Carter, Mike Hunt, and Jim Del Gaizo play football. Somehow we survived their passing from the game.

Heh Heh......you said Mike Hunt.

[Pugger]

I think everybody realizes that the NFLPA is still operating as union. They just want to avoid saying this where the NLRB might hear them.

Isn't this (the decertification of the union being a sham) what the league wants the courts to declare so it will take this out of the legal system and back to the bargaining table?

[sharpe1027]

I never said that Jobs designed the iPod and I never said that Jerry Jones takes a snap at the line of scrimmage. That is kinda my point, the grunts on the ground are replaceable, but the guys with a vision AND the committment to that vision that makes them risk everything for your benefit (and their own) are anything but. If Tom Brady blows out a knee and Matt Cassell comes in to play, the NFL doesn't lose popularity or viewers. They are both merely employees who are benefitting from this thing called the NFL.

If Jerry Jones goes bankrupt and another billionaire buys the team, you think that the NFL will lose popularity or viewers?

[Tony Oday]

If Jerry Jones goes bankrupt and another billionaire buys the team, you think that the NFL will lose popularity or viewers?

If he goes bankrupt that means they have already lost the popularity.

[Pugger]

I never said that Jobs designed the iPod and I never said that Jerry Jones takes a snap at the line of scrimmage. That is kinda my point, the grunts on the ground are replaceable, but the guys with a vision AND the committment to that vision that makes them risk everything for your benefit (and their own) are anything but. If Tom Brady blows out a knee and Matt Cassell comes in to play, the NFL doesn't lose popularity or viewers. They are both merely employees who are benefitting from this thing called the NFL.

Players come and go over time. Did fans stop watching Packer football after the Lombardi years and the team stunk most of the time for a couple of decades? We are basically fans of the team/franchise. As long as somebody owns the team and the NFL is still around we fans will be there. The players are only around for a short time but the teams and the league will be here for the duration.

[bobblehead]

If Jerry Jones goes bankrupt and another billionaire buys the team, you think that the NFL will lose popularity or viewers?

well, that depends on the billionaire and what attributes he brings to the table. The blanket assumption you have that one billionaire is as good as the next speaks volumes about where you are coming from. I am guessing that you think that if suddenly the posters at packerrats took over the 32 teams it would be a smooth transition.

[bobblehead]

Players come and go over time. Did fans stop watching Packer football after the Lombardi years and the team stunk most of the time for a couple of decades? We are basically fans of the team/franchise. As long as somebody owns the team and the NFL is still around we fans will be there. The players are only around for a short time but the teams and the league will be here for the duration.

You also are making my point for me. Thank you. The teams are what we are fans of. The teams have built up the loyalty over the years. Sharpe asks if I think the NFL will lose popularity if another billionaire takes over the cowboys. I ask you this. If another billionaire spends a billion to purchase the cowboys, should he NOT get a good return on his money because the teams popularity was built up over generations? He is PURCHASING that infrastructure and brand name. It isn't being given to him. The players are employees and deserve some solid compensation for being the best at what they do, but to somehow claim that they have as much rights to the profits of the NFL's brand that the guys who invested in it and reinvest in it to keep it popular....well, I don't know what to say.

If I buy an Arby's, do the existing employees have more of a claim to the profits than me?

[Tarlam!]

Players come and go over time. Did fans stop watching Packer football after the Lombardi years and the team stunk most of the time for a couple of decades? We are basically fans of the team/franchise. As long as somebody owns the team and the NFL is still around we fans will be there. The players are only around for a short time but the teams and the league will be here for the duration.

You're right, Pugger. Packers, Bills even Detroit fans shouldn't be used as the measuring stick, IMHO.Why? They aint fickle. I just read the Saints sold out this season's tickets. But I wonder about many franchises that contribute, when halfway successful, to the entire colouer of the NFL.

It is such a great product and so well balanced. Last SB was the most watched USA TV event of all time. It aint broke! :bang:

[sharpe1027]

well, that depends on the billionaire and what attributes he brings to the table. The blanket assumption you have that one billionaire is as good as the next speaks volumes about where you are coming from. I am guessing that you think that if suddenly the posters at packerrats took over the 32 teams it would be a smooth transition.

I never said "one billionaire is as good as the next." Did I accuse you of saying that "one QB is as good as the next" with your identical argument regarding the players? No. If you think that most fans watch football because of what the owner's bring to the table, and that they don't watch because of what the players bring, then you have a point. I don't see that, but maybe I just don't know the same fans as you do... ;)

[sharpe1027]

If I buy an Arby's, do the existing employees have more of a claim to the profits than me?

The problem is you either bought the Arby's knowing full well that the existing employees already had an agreement to share profits, or you negotiated the agreement yourself. If you did not factor that into your decision to purchase the Arby's or negotiate a better deal in the first place, its your own fault.

[bobblehead]

The problem is you either bought the Arby's knowing full well that the existing employees already had an agreement to share profits, or you negotiated the agreement yourself. If you did not factor that into your decision to purchase the Arby's or negotiate a better deal in the first place, its your own fault.

I am not arguing that. The owners were well within their rights under the CBA to void the rest of it and lockout the players.

This fundamental argument comes down to who we are backing going forward. Whereas I don't want the players fucked back to the stone ages, I do back the owners to use more of the revenue to improve the brand going forward. I will be a fan for long after Aaron Rodgers and Clay Mathews are gone and I want MOST of the money going towards the owners and infrastructure that will be around with me.

[sharpe1027]

I am not arguing that. The owners were well within their rights under the CBA to void the rest of it and lockout the players.

This fundamental argument comes down to who we are backing going forward. Whereas I don't want the players fucked back to the stone ages, I do back the owners to use more of the revenue to improve the brand going forward. I will be a fan for long after Aaron Rodgers and Clay Mathews are gone and I want MOST of the money going towards the owners and infrastructure that will be around with me.

That's not an unreasonable position. I wish I had more confidence that the owners would use their increased revenue to my benefit. For example, Jerry Jones has done everything possible to circumvent the profit sharing of the NFL so that he can keep more money. I don't think much of what he has done is in the long-term interest of the league so much as his personal gain.

As I was trying to point out from the beginning, the only issue is how much each side ends up with. It's way to complex for me to know what is in the best interest of the fans. I don't think I can say with any confidence that one side is more right than the other right now.

[mraynrand]

That's not an unreasonable position. I wish I had more confidence that the owners would use their increased revenue to my benefit. For example, Jerry Jones has done everything possible to circumvent the profit sharing of the NFL so that he can keep more money. I don't think much of what he has done is in the long-term interest of the league so much as his personal gain.

I think you get both. The guy has invested a lot in the product. Not everyone is psycho for the game the way we are here. Many are just there for the spectacle and the amenities. Jones is providing that and more. He wants to make money doing it. I don't blame him. What I don't like is when he goes too far to undermine the integrity of the league. But from his perspective, he as to deal with both players who want more and owners who are perfectly happy to let him pay for improvement in the NFL brand - and he's supposed to want to pay players more, let some owners get a free ride and be happy about it, taking less revenue?

[sharpe1027]

I think you get both. The guy has invested a lot in the product. Not everyone is psycho for the game the way we are here. Many are just there for the spectacle and the amenities. Jones is providing that and more. He wants to make money doing it. I don't blame him. What I don't like is when he goes too far to undermine the integrity of the league. But from his perspective, he as to deal with both players who want more and owners who are perfectly happy to let him pay for improvement in the NFL brand - and he's supposed to want to pay players more, let some owners get a free ride and be happy about it, taking less revenue?

You are right. Jones has his own perspective and what he has done may even be justified as being beneficial to the league. Still, the concept of giving more money to the owners instead of the players is not a simple (zero-sum) game that necessarily is best for the fans.

[mraynrand]

Still, the concept of giving more money to the owners instead of the players is not a simple (zero-sum) game that necessarily is best for the fans.

I agree. Any revenue distribution model that didn't include an increase in player payouts linked to league growth would be untenable. But that's the issue - what percent of growth should go to players and to owners - and how much to various owners. I think the league should pro-rate the distribution of profit (not to be used for player salaries) to owners based on their contribution to league growth, beyond some baseline profit sharing. Separately, a percent of revenue should be negotiated with players. Skimming a certain fixed amount off the top for owners seems misguided because it doesn't take into account growth or contraction of revenues.

[Tarlam!]

Good, well thought out post, Rand, IMHO.

[sharpe1027]

I agree. Any revenue distribution model that didn't include an increase in player payouts linked to league growth would be untenable. But that's the issue - what percent of growth should go to players and to owners - and how much to various owners. I think the league should pro-rate the distribution of profit (not to be used for player salaries) to owners based on their contribution to league growth, beyond some baseline profit sharing. Separately, a percent of revenue should be negotiated with players. Skimming a certain fixed amount off the top for owners seems misguided because it doesn't take into account growth or contraction of revenues.

I like the concept, but I think that trying to quantify "their contribution to league growth" might be difficult or impossible to implement correctly. Look at what happened with the current CBA, the players do not trust that the owners are correctly accounting for their expenses and the owners don't want to share that information. I can see a similar situation where owners are disputing who contributes more to the league growth.

Maybe they could work out an incentive plan where qualified investments (determined by the league as a whole) permit an owner to recoup their investment before sharing with other owners, or to at least not share the entire return from whatever they are investing in.

[bobblehead]

The catch here is that only ONE side has ANY incentive to look at the league going forward and its the owners. Every player in the NFL right now has a window to make as much as he can. That window is inside 10 years for all but a few of the youngest stars. None of the players are looking at the league beyond that time frame. The owners however wish to make money in perpetuity. They have every reason to stay on top and make it undesireable for another league to form.

I agree with Rand's take on Jerrah. He built a fancy new stadium. He is trying to get new revenues from nike. He is doing everything he can to maximize his business while some owners are coasting and benefitting from his efforts. I don't blame him to be honest, but I still don't like him.

[swede]

The catch here is that only ONE side has ANY incentive to look at the league going forward and its the owners.

This is so obvious, such a powerful dynamic in the conflict, and yet it is not often mentioned.

I often wonder why the agents do not take a longer view.

[swede]

Andrew Brandt, the former Packer Capologist, translates for us. I appreciate his telling us not to sweat it. All of the drama is still just negotiating that will end up with an agreement sooner or later.

Andrew Brandt is one smart geek (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/122784144.html)

And a rather stunning development reported by Brandt's website--a development I hadn't heard about anywhere else. The NFL Coaches' Association filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the players. Wow.

Andrew Brandt's Super Cool Website (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Caught-in-the-crossfire.html)

I wonder if the coaches are siding with the players with the idea that ending the lockout gets them full employment and full access to their players.

[Lurker64]

And a rather stunning development reported by Brandt's website--a development I hadn't heard about anywhere else. The NFL Coaches' Association filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the players. Wow.

Andrew Brandt's Super Cool Website (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Caught-in-the-crossfire.html)

I wonder if the coaches are siding with the players with the idea that ending the lockout gets them full employment and full access to their players.

Well, the interesting thing is that the National Football League Coaches Association doesn't represent all (or any) of the coaches. The NFLCA couldn't get a single coach to sign onto their amicus brief, while every single coach of the Washington Redskins signed their name to a brief in support of the owners that decries the NFLCA's attempt to represent them without their permission. The New Orleans Saints coaches also went public saying that they didn't know anything about what the NFLCA was doing and they were not represented nor did they support the NFLCA.

It's not actually clear whether the NFLCA represents any coaches at all, despite the name of the organization.

[Guiness]

Well, the interesting thing is that the National Football League Coaches Association doesn't represent all (or any) of the coaches. The NFLCA couldn't get a single coach to sign onto their amicus brief, while every single coach of the Washington Redskins signed their name to a brief in support of the owners that decries the NFLCA's attempt to represent them without their permission. The New Orleans Saints coaches also went public saying that they didn't know anything about what the NFLCA was doing and they were not represented nor did they support the NFLCA.

It's not actually clear whether the NFLCA represents any coaches at all, despite the name of the organization.

The one name mentioned was a former WLAF coach I've never heard of...

[SkinBasket]

Well, the interesting thing is that the National Football League Coaches Association doesn't represent all (or any) of the coaches. The NFLCA couldn't get a single coach to sign onto their amicus brief, while every single coach of the Washington Redskins signed their name to a brief in support of the owners that decries the NFLCA's attempt to represent them without their permission. The New Orleans Saints coaches also went public saying that they didn't know anything about what the NFLCA was doing and they were not represented nor did they support the NFLCA.

It's not actually clear whether the NFLCA represents any coaches at all, despite the name of the organization.

More union bullshit.

[mraynrand]

Perception is reality. I could take a shit in a box and slap a guarantee on it that it was from an NFL coach, but all you'd get is a guaranteed box of shit. If you can get 30,000 'scientists' to sign a document claiming that man-made Global warming is 'true' and another 30,000 to claim that it is 'false,' then it must be true. Or False. The key is making sure that your 30,000 are heard from versus the other side. Then you win the PR battle and it helps win the legal battle. Who cares about reality, when all you care about is winning the legal battle?

[Guiness]

Perception is reality. I could take a shit in a box and slap a guarantee on it that it was from an NFL coach, but all you'd get is a guaranteed box of shit. If you can get 30,000 'scientists' to sign a document claiming that man-made Global warming is 'true' and another 30,000 to claim that it is 'false,' then it must be true. Or False. The key is making sure that your 30,000 are heard from versus the other side. Then you win the PR battle and it helps win the legal battle. Who cares about reality, when all you care about is winning the legal battle?

You're wrong there puppy. Take it from an old dog like myself, it means nothing unless you supply a 'Certificate of Authenticity'. Then it's good and proper shit.

Just had this conversation at lunch after seeing an advertisement for a replica of Kate Middleton's wedding ring, complete with, you guessed it, a CoA.

[mraynrand]

You're wrong there puppy. Take it from an old dog like myself, it means nothing unless you supply a 'Certificate of Authenticity'. Then it's good and proper shit.

Just had this conversation at lunch after seeing an advertisement for a replica of Kate Middleton's wedding ring, complete with, you guessed it, a CoA.


That would be a CoR - a Certificate of Replicity

[swede]

Michael Hunt figures that he'll be retired by the time bad CBA's kill the league, but he won't want to miss out on the game day buffets for the journalists this fall.

I guess we know where Michael Hunt stands... (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/122915708.html)

[Tarlam!]

Michael Hunt figures that he'll be retired by the time bad CBA's kill the league, but he won't want to miss out on the game day buffets for the journalists this fall.

I guess we know where Michael Hunt stands... (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/122915708.html)


As much as the players deserve to win this squabble the owners started, I can't see the players doing anything but eventually giving in if the lockout is upheld. Unfortunately, not enough of them are financially prepared to miss more than a paycheck or two. Not enough of them are willing to give up an entire season of a career that lasts, on average, less than four.

What an idiot!

[mraynrand]

Michael Hunt figures that he'll be retired by the time bad CBA's kill the league, but he won't want to miss out on the game day buffets for the journalists this fall.

I guess we know where Michael Hunt stands... (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/122915708.html)


I learned that season ticket sales are up and that Michael Hunt looks like my daughter's beastly PE teacher who everyone thinks 'probably' is gay.

https://si1.twimg.com/profile_images/1330887941/Hunt_blog_mug_2_bigger.jpg

[Tarlam!]

He must have been one hell of an ugly baby for Mr. and Mrs Hunt to name him Micheal.

[Brandon494]

What an idiot!

Exactly how is he an idiot from that statement?

[swede]

Exactly how is he an idiot from that statement?

There are two aspects to the quoted statement that lead me to believe that MH processes information badly. The first is that he deliberately emotionalized and took sides in a legal issue in which the owners had done nothing except exercise a legal option they had to re-open the CBA before its full expiration. Calling it a squabble trivializes the issue, which is of course what he deliberately set out to do when he chose his words. Idiot though he may be, MH is a journalist and words are his medium.

The second is that he made these omniscient pronouncements with no special knowledge of the situation--certainly no more privileged knowledge than that possessed by the posters on this forum. With a judgement in their favor the owners may be on their way to grabbing a bigger piece of the pie. If they do, one must remember it is their pie. Were we able to know all we may even say that owners are taking a really big bite of the pie. Wow! But then again...it is their pie. It may be that the players will gain some advantage by winning in the courts and get a bigger piece of somebody else's pie. The bright side of that arrangement is that we just might play football in the fall. No matter how you slice it, it is very interesting that Hunt is so completely convinced that the players "deserve" victory just as the owner's "deserve" defeat.

So, in short, Hunt has dropped any pretense of journalistic objectivity--which is pretty much how journalists operate these days--in order to demonstrate his Tarzan-like omniscience: players good, owners bad.

[MJZiggy]

Just a thought, but I wonder if anyone's look to see how things were split historically, like when the league first started and before the money involved was so obnoxious.

[Lurker64]

The viewpoint of the media is pretty easy to ferret out: they want something to report about. While the players were suing to get a preliminary injunction to lift the lockout, they were on the side of the players since once the lockout is lifted there will be football and they will have something to report about. Once it's clear that the players will not get the preliminary injunction that they want, the media viewpoint will shift and they will be in favor of the players capitulating since once the players capitulate there will be a new CBA and then football will start and they will have something to report on.

The thing the media does not want to see is "the players lose in the 8th circuit, and they refuse to budge and pursue further legal wrangling in search of leverage in lieu of negotiation" since that's a recipe for missing most of (if not all of) the 2011 NFL season.

[Tarlam!]

At this stage of the "negotitiation", I threaten to cancel th season if I'm the owners. Only the Packers ould be hit badly and the owners could start a fund similar to that of the players.

[swede]

The viewpoint of the media is pretty easy to ferret out: they want something to report about. While the players were suing to get a preliminary injunction to lift the lockout, they were on the side of the players since once the lockout is lifted there will be football and they will have something to report about. Once it's clear that the players will not get the preliminary injunction that they want, the media viewpoint will shift and they will be in favor of the players capitulating since once the players capitulate there will be a new CBA and then football will start and they will have something to report on.

The thing the media does not want to see is "the players lose in the 8th circuit, and they refuse to budge and pursue further legal wrangling in search of leverage in lieu of negotiation" since that's a recipe for missing most of (if not all of) the 2011 NFL season.

Yeah...I think you may be right about the media as a whole deliberately ratcheting up pressure on the owners simply as a way to become another influential dynamic as the NFL hurtles toward the football/no football deadline--a deadline thought to be about August 15th. After the 15th of August the season would almost certainly need to be abbreviated and re-scheduled. After October 1st one would think the season would simply be cancelled.

The problem with the first deadline is that everyone will be hella unhappy all season long. It would almost be better to cash in the whole season and start fresh in '12 with a better attitude about how important it is for both parties not to screw up a good thing.

[MadScientist]

The problem with the first deadline is that everyone will be hella unhappy all season long. It would almost be better to cash in the whole season and start fresh in '12 with a better attitude about how important it is for both parties not to screw up a good thing.
Too late at that point. If they kill the season they will have screwed up the good thing for a long time. Casual fans will find something else to do. Ratings and revenue will be down for years, etc. Look at the hits MLB and the NHL took. The NFL is not so special it can loose a season and come back like nothing happened.

[swede]

Too late at that point. If they kill the season they will have screwed up the good thing for a long time. Casual fans will find something else to do. Ratings and revenue will be down for years, etc. Look at the hits MLB and the NHL took. The NFL is not so special it can loose a season and come back like nothing happened.

Your point about killing the season causing long-term damage is a good one. But if they can't bring an agreement in under the wire to avoid missing ANY games, and that deadline is about 70 days away, they bring about an entirely new clusterfudge of scheduling and compensating in an abbreviated season that would need its own negotiations and cause brand new begrudgements among fans and the rankle and file.

More and more it seems as if the only smart thing to do is to get this thing done.

DeMaurice may be too brilliant to be smart.

[MadScientist]

Your point about killing the season causing long-term damage is a good one. But if they can't bring an agreement in under the wire to avoid missing ANY games, and that deadline is about 70 days away, they bring about an entirely new clusterfudge of scheduling and compensating in an abbreviated season that would need its own negotiations and cause brand new begrudgements among fans and the rankle and file.

More and more it seems as if the only smart thing to do is to get this thing done.

DeMaurice may be too brilliant to be smart.

100% Agree that the only smart move is to get a deal done. Any loss of games is going to have ripple effects. Hell, even loosing pre-season games or part of training camp is going to hurt a place like Green Bay.

I'm not impressed by Smith's public face, but I don't know what is going on behind the closed doors, or what sort of screwball legal issues may be involved. PFT has been posting some more positive articles, particularly this quote:

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the cancellation has indeed occurred, with the federal court explaining that “it is engaged in confidential settlement talks with the parties.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/02/next-weeks-mediation-session-has-been-canceled/

Maybe, just maybe, they will avoid killing the golden goose.

[easy cheesy]

Maybe, just maybe, they will avoid killing the golden goose.

Maybe... just maybe.. they could kill Al Davis and Jerry Jones....

[easy cheesy]

an economy of motions... one "swoop"... I hate those bastards... just sayin'... I'll go back to the Romper Room now...

[SkinBasket]

Maybe... just maybe.. they could kill Al Davis and Jerry Jones....

As long as you call it kinetic action, anything goes.

While I'm hopeful of something getting done, mostly because the stupid fat mouthed idiot players haven't let their labia faces fall open to the press about the meetings yet - which must mean someone is seriously serious, I'm a bit pessimistic that not all owners knew what was going on, or at least pretended not to know. Negotiating first, then selling the terms to the owners later, could cause just as many problems.

[MadScientist]

Maybe... just maybe.. they could kill Al Davis and Jerry Jones....

How do you kill Al Davis, isn't he undead already?

[mraynrand]

How do you kill Al Davis, isn't he undead already?

Al's fine. He's just chillin'

http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/screenshot1uk7.png

[bobblehead]

Rand, you stole my thunder. I have been telling people for years (don't recall if I ever posted it here) that its just like weekend at bernies where someone in the front office with a lot to lose has him propped up and embalmed. He even wears the fricking glasses.

[MadScientist]

Al's fine. He's just chillin'

http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/screenshot1uk7.png

I was going to suggest that you Photoshop Al's head on that picture, but no way could that pass for a living person, and the picture might be horrific enough to require moving to the GC.

In other zombie related news, the talks seem to be coming back from the dead:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/report-owners-made-concessions-during-recent-talks/
If the owners made some real concessions, now is the time for the players to do so as well and get this thing done.

[Smidgeon]

I was going to suggest that you Photoshop Al's head on that picture, but no way could that pass for a living person, and the picture might be horrific enough to require moving to the GC.

In other zombie related news, the talks seem to be coming back from the dead:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/report-owners-made-concessions-during-recent-talks/
If the owners made some real concessions, now is the time for the players to do so as well and get this thing done.

I still keep waiting for the players to counter-propose something...