http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ast-offer.html
Now we're talkin!
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ast-offer.html
Now we're talkin!
confused as I thought you were the far side hater of the owners
So what's worse? Slavery or the worst deal in the history of professional sports? Apparently the worst deal in the history of professional sports, according to Smith.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeMaurice Smith
The kind of childish, idiotic statements being made by the players and their "representatives" only underscore how impossible negotiation with them is by reasonable, able-minded, educated people. It must have been like talking to monkeys.
...and everytime someone from the nfl makes a statement about what was offered they're called liars. don't know what to believe.
What is the players proposal?
Thank you for making the owner's case for them. The NFL's charge before the NLRB is that union bargained in bad faith all along, with no actual interest in getting a deal done and instead preferring litigation. If the NLRB agrees with you, this will potentially undo the NFL's decertification and put the union in a significantly disadvantageous position, staring up at a lockout that they have no recourse to end beyond bargaining.
Interesting question to which I haven't yet heard an answer. In my opinion, the player's proposal is probably "status quo" to the last deal (not the last year). Everyone knows the owners opted out because they thought the deal favored the players too much. So I would imagine the players are using the last deal as their starting point. Now, since they haven't really seemed to counter-propose anything, I don't think their position has changed.
The key distinction is that from the NLRB's perspective, lockouts are legitimate. They're identical to strikes, except they're perpetrated by management and not labor. But there's nothing a priori unacceptable about a lockout, since one can always be avoided (and ended) by negotiating and it's the NLRB's goal to encourage such. The NLRB, however, has a vested interest in preventing sham-decertification-coupled-with-lawsuit as a negotiating practice since it is an inherently unfair negotiating strategy (and it ties up federal courts with an issue that should really just be resolved in a board room).
In principle, if a union should be allowed to strike then management should be allowed to lock out labor. If one isn't allowable, then the other shouldn't be either.
You are correct under Pash's opinion, "A lockout is accepted practice under labor law, and that collective bargaining, rather than litigation, remains the best way to settle the sides' differences."
here is a copy of the commish's letter...
http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/11031..._3_17_2011.pdf
here is a copy of the player's response to it...
http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/19...ond/#more-1245
I heard about this on espn radio with John Clayton and Andrew Brandt. Brandt contends the owner's latest "proposal" are the "easy give" items in terms of pension and player safety. Revenue split will always remain the key and most contentious issue.
Currently only counsel from each side can negotiate until the April 6 hearing. Brandt stated litigation speeds up the process as opposed to negotiation only. According to Brandt
Lockout illegal -- 2010 contract remains and the 2011 season can start. Negotiations concurrently restart for a new CBA . Thank goodness Gov. Walker is involved.
Lockout legal -- Negotiations for a new CBA can resume ASAP.
More stuff from Brandt who studied the "proposal." The salary cap increase is paid to pensions -- not to current player salaries. TV revenue in several years is scheduled to increase from $4 billion to $8 billion. Future proposed salary caps are unreflective of this increased TV revenue.
From what I've been able to glean, the kerfuffle over the salary cap proposed last friday is a microcosm of the whole mess.
So the league initially proposes a salary cap structure, and the players propose a more generous one. Last friday, the league says essentially "okay, well... what about this number in the middle?" and what the league presented did not address how the cap might grow if the game grows beyond projections. So instead of asking "well, we might be able to work with that provided the cap increases x% of the total money the league makes beyond projections" the NFLPA presumed that the league was saying "you get none of any money above and beyond projections" and storms out in a huff to file a lawsuit.
I've honestly never seen two groups of adult men, with highly paid lawyers on staff to advise them, less capable of actually communicating with each other.
The players' response had the language and stance of a temper tantrum. "You didn't address this and this and this." Well, make a counter offer. For example, what if Moodys is wrong? What is your offer for percentage share of revenue.
If anyone knows of a responsible counter-offer that the players made, I'd appreciate the link. Otherwise, I have to believe those who said the players were interested in forcing litigation from the start.
Litigation does not speed up the negotiating process. Negotiating speeds up the negotiation process. The players want litigation because they think they can get the best deal that way. Not because it's fair, or because it's efficient, but because that's how they think they can get the best deal. Like the lockout, it's just about creating leverage.
The interesting thing about the litigation strategy, is that if it backfires on the players they will have given the league a whole lot of leverage. Litigation carries risk for everybody involved (except the lawyers.)
B.S. The owners wanted to stall through negotiations. Major issues shall be resolved on April 6 due to litigation not negotiating. True negotiating starts after April 6. Brandt stated on espn radio everything is in place for an agreement -- its early in the negotiating process and both sides do not want to show their hand too early.
Litigation forces the owners to negotiate on more than just the easy takes.
WOW! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the players response! If anyone needed more evidence that the NFLPA was not negotiating, but stalling, this letter is proof.
All players did was complain, criticize and demean offers put on the table by the owners. Not so much as a comment about a counteroffer from the players. Nothing that the players did in an effort to narrow the gap. It appears the "negotiations" went like this:
Players: "Make an offer"
Owners: "Here's a proposed framework."
Players: "Not good enough. Make a better offer."
Owners: "How about this?"
Players: "Nope, still not acceptable."
Owners: "Maybe this?"
Players: "Still not good enough. See you in court."
I would have expected the players to respond by explaining how they, in good faith, had tried to work toward a settlement. They offered absolutely no evidence of that.
If you think that anything is actually going to be decided on April 6, you seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Hearings for a preliminary injunction blocking a lockout *start* on April 6, to say nothing about the time it takes to reach a decision, and inevitable appeals (whichever side loses here will appeal). The actual details of Brady v. NFL won't be heard for months. A deal could get done by negotiating well before that.
Could you link to the podcast of the show? Or at least the name of the show, and the date and approximate time? This is at odds with everything that he's written for the NFP.
Dude, you do not understand the process according to Brandt. E-mail him. Seriously -- things can not always be explained with your mathematical equations.
Arrogant owners and Show Me the Money Players can not be easily resolved with formal negotiations.
If Mr. Smith hired you as a paid consultant how would you advise him in obtaining the best deal possible for the players?
When you assume that two sides in a negotiation are fundamentally unwilling to budge, then yes... litigation is pretty much your only means of forcing the other side to agree with you. However, assuming that two parties are fundamentally unwilling to budge in a negotiation defeats the actual purpose of negotiation. Obviously the owners were willing to budge, and if the players weren't then that bodes poorly for their ability to fend off the "sham decertification" charges.
One shouldn't get involved in negotiation unless one is willing to negotiate, and if you can't find anybody on your side who is actually willing to negotiate, then you really need to reconsider your stance.
Once again, it really appears that neither the players or their representatives had the mental capacity to negotiate. This letter evidences that the player position has been little more than "you didn't give us what we demanded." I don't think it was a communication problem, as someone suggested earlier. I think it was a understanding problem on the players part, of what exactly was being offered, what the consequences of the offer or litigation are (just like a couple folks here), and that when they broke from negotiations, they needed a plan to move forward that didn't involve making idiots out of themselves and their position on a daily basis. Like I said, like dealing with monkeys. Greedy monkeys.
Chimp Bailey? Frank Gorilla?
To me it is becoming obvious the players want things to stay as they were in the old CBA and the owners say their profits are dropping because of player costs so they opted out. The ONLY thing I care about is what is good for the Green Bay Packers and I fear the players are hell bent on eliminating the salary cap and revenue sharing. As Packer fans we should be leary of this!
The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand. They want the players to sign something when they don't know if it could have been better or not.
DeMaurice Smith is clearly an amateur compared to the NFL when it comes to public relations. It's too bad, I think he's the more reasonable party. Not opening the books is preposterous. Just take it to litigation where they'll sign a deal with full disclosure. Smart move, but the NFL chose it by not even being reasonable.
I'll bet the players do better with litigation than this deadline offer. Any takers? I hope it stretches into the season. I'd like to see the owners lose a couple billion and then get bent over in court.
I'm saying in litigation they will open the books so the NFLPA would be idiots to just agree to this. Take it all the way. It's their best bet and damn right that's where they wanted to go once they realized the owners were not going to let them see the numbers. Players are getting what they want. Owners aren't. The legal system is on the players side.
There is a fundamental question everyone is ignoring:
If the player's income has increased by 100% in 10 years (which it basically would have under the owners proposal), is it fundamentally unfair if the owners profits grew by 125% (or more) in that same time frame?
You seem to suggest that it is, that fairness is achieved only if the owners profits grow no faster than the players'. I disagree.
We don't even know what fairness is, how to measure where it's been or how to predict where it's going, oh unless you take Jerry Jones word in good faith. No thanks, if I'm leading the NFLPA, I'm doing exactly what DeMaurice Smith is doing. Litigation, litigation, litigation. I think they're satisfied with not saying a word to the NFL right now. It's the NFL squirming, putting out these big press releases about how bad and mean DeMaurice Smith was.
Why are you so convinced that the books will be opened in litigation. Discovery is an extremely contentious process, and by my count the NFL has better lawyers. It's entirely possible that, in discovery, the NFLPA will get less financial transparency than they were offered at the bargaining table.
To assume that the legal system is on the player's side is simply wrong. The legal system is on nobody's side. That's why it's an effective recourse for resolving disputes, since it's (in principle) unbiased.
If you are responding to my last question, you lost me with your answer. The number doesn't matter. Is it fair if the owners profits grew more than the players' income, when the players income doubled in 10 years? Keep in mind we are not talking about low paying jobs ro begin with.
You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.
In the world of negotiating, I don't think the NFL will have a very easy time convincing a shrewd and well trained professional that it's fair. It is where it is right now. Moving forward or backward is harder to accomplish than staying the same. I think that's what the NFL is trying to do, take a step forward with their profits. The NFLPA has the job of keepign it the same or getting better on their end. A lot of money is on the line and the players want to take it to litigation where they believe they'll get their best deal. Why is everyone so mad about that?