CBA

[Patler]

Well, they are just getting started, so harmonious might be a short term condition. But it was a lost opportunity. It seems much more of a mind thinking take it or leave it. Reports about Richardson say he is among a handful that are willing to lose a season to lower the player cost number.

Ya, I suspect it will get more and more contentious. It always does when time limits are pushed this much. Richardson might be in the room to make it very clear to the players that the owners are very, very serious about this matter. He is their sacrificial lamb who can play the jerk, later to be replaced by the more moderate compromisor who will get it done. Murphy could be a candidate to serve the role of the finisher. An "owner" without the typical ownership interest, a former player familiar with the workings of both sides, and a former litigator. He could darned near serve as a mediator!

[SkinBasket]

I am guessing here but with Drew and Peyton's charity work they are probably on the board of directors of their foundations. They would be analyzing the financial statements every quarter to see if the charities are meeting their goals.

Have you ever served on a board? There's usually not a whole lot of analyzing of anything going on. It's more like a 4H meeting without the decorum and the pledge.

I still don't understand what two players are doing in the room if the union is serious about working out a deal. Like I said, it's like having two hourly workers from a corner lot meeting with the CEO of Ford and trying to tell him how to run his business. Sounds more to me like those two were sent in to elicit a reaction to be "leaked" to the press about how mean and old and angry the owners are.

[Patler]

Have you ever served on a board? There's usually not a whole lot of analyzing of anything going on. It's more like a 4H meeting without the decorum and the pledge.

I still don't understand what two players are doing in the room if the union is serious about working out a deal. Like I said, it's like having two hourly workers from a corner lot meeting with the CEO of Ford and trying to tell him how to run his business. Sounds more to me like those two were sent in to elicit a reaction to be "leaked" to the press about how mean and old and angry the owners are.

It's not unusual for representative members of a union to be part of a negotiating team. I doubt that Brees and Manning were there by themselves.

[ThunderDan]

Have you ever served on a board? There's usually not a whole lot of analyzing of anything going on. It's more like a 4H meeting without the decorum and the pledge.

I still don't understand what two players are doing in the room if the union is serious about working out a deal. Like I said, it's like having two hourly workers from a corner lot meeting with the CEO of Ford and trying to tell him how to run his business. Sounds more to me like those two were sent in to elicit a reaction to be "leaked" to the press about how mean and old and angry the owners are.

Yes as a CPA I am asked all the time to be on boards and I have been for 5 of the last 7 years. While most financial reviews are quick and dirty when I am the treasurer I spend a lot of time to get even the most "financial illiterate" members up to speed. How can the borad and the staff do their jobs effectively if they have no idea what the bottom line is? Members routinely compain that meetings are going much longer when we review the financials.

[sharpe1027]

Yes as a CPA I am asked all the time to be on boards and I have been for 5 of the last 7 years. While most financial reviews are quick and dirty when I am the treasurer I spend a lot of time to get even the most "financial illiterate" members up to speed. How can the borad and the staff do their jobs effectively if they have no idea what the bottom line is? Members routinely compain that meetings are going much longer when we review the financials.

Simply put, many of them are not effective.

[ThunderDan]

Simply put, many of them are not effective.

Sad but true.

With United Way donations and regular donations from the community down it is vital to maximize contributions and efficencies. The office worker who is negative to the people coming thru the door and gives poor customer service can be a huge financial drain on the whole organization.

[bobblehead]

If that is the worst thing that happens in the negotiations, it will be damned harmonious.
And if the players took great offense to it, they are too thin-skinned for contract negotiations.

I disagree patler. I think when you are in a negotiation and one side insults or gets flippant and dismissive it says volumes about THAT person, not the ones who are offended by it. In my own dealings if this happened to me I likely wouldn't be offended, but I would simply get up and tell them to call me when they are ready for discussion rather than lecture.

It takes quite the fool to think he can bring the other side closer to him by being rude. Such closed mindedness basically tells me that the individual isn't serious about compromise....yet.

[Patler]

If that is the worst thing that happens in the negotiations, it will be damned harmonious.
And if the players took great offense to it, they are too thin-skinned for contract negotiations.

I disagree patler. I think when you are in a negotiation and one side insults or gets flippant and dismissive it says volumes about THAT person, not the ones who are offended by it. In my own dealings if this happened to me I likely wouldn't be offended, but I would simply get up and tell them to call me when they are ready for discussion rather than lecture.

It takes quite the fool to think he can bring the other side closer to him by being rude. Such closed mindedness basically tells me that the individual isn't serious about compromise....yet.

I've been in a lot of those types of rooms in my career, once even to negotiate a labor contract for an AFSCME local about 40 years ago. I stand by what I said. If that is the most contentious statement made, it will have been a very harmonious negotiation. No one is trying to draw anyone closer to them at this point, and they might never do so.

The reality is that in most of those types of things, if the negotiations are long or difficult with the parties initially a long way apart, at some point everyone will feel insulted, unappreciated or misunderstood. That's just the way it goes.

We have no insight into the circumstances that prompted the statement. Maybe an unreasonable demand or an ill-formed argument prompted Richardson to actually believe that Brees and Manning did not understand the paper in front of them. Maybe he's just an ass, I don't know. It really doesn't matter. He is the one in the room, and the players have to deal with him at least for now. They aren't going to change him. If the players are going to come out and belly-ache over any little statement that is barely offensive, this will never get done. In a big-deal type negotiation with long range repercussions like this one, everyone in the room has to feel that they can speak their mind and speak frankly, without petty details or grievances being made public. If the negotiators have to proof their comments for public dissemination the negotiations will take for ever. No one should have to worry about hurting someone's feelings by an off-hand comment. There's real work to be done.

It was a minor thing that the players should have kept to themselves. If they start negotiating this in public, start planning fall activities to replace the NFL for you entertainment, because it won't get done.

[Guiness]

It was a minor thing that the players should have kept to themselves. If they start negotiating this in public, start planning fall activities to replace the NFL for you entertainment, because it won't get done.

Regardless of whether Richardson's statement was meant to ridicule or inform, and how it was received, this last line from your post is the most pertinent.

Once one party or the other goes public with the quibbles they've got, the whole thing blows up. Sure, the owners have conducted their own PR campaign, but it was portrayed as informational...as opposed to coming across as being whiney.

We've seen this with the Pack time and again. When a player deserves a new contract, if he's quiet and has his agent conduct a reasonable negotiation with the team, he's much more likely to get it then if they pull a Revis or Chris Johnson (or Javon Walker...) type of move and run to the media with their claims of 'disrespect'. I can't remember the last time a Packer complained about their contract and got a new one. I think Grant was unhappy, but didn't carry on about it.

[ThunderDan]

Stories like this make me worry if a settlement can be reached anytime soon.

http://nfl-facts-and-rumors.blogs.cb...75988/27503438

There's also, apparently, a little vitriol between the groups. That's not shocking. But Jay Feely's mention -- on the Michael Kay Show via Pro Football Talk -- of the way Panthers owner Jerry Richardson reportedly spoke to NFL icons Peyton Manning and Drew Brees during a Dallas negotiating session is terrifying for anyone who thinks a peaceful ending to labor talks is coming soon.

"Jerry Richardson, the lead negotiator for the owners, he's going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?" Feely said. "And sit there and say dismissively of Manning 'Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don't know if you understand how to read that?'"

How come the owner of the worst team in the league gets to lead the owner negotiations?

Per NFL radio what Richardson said was so bad that the other owners in the league have been calling Peyton and Drew to apologize since the meeting.

[denverYooper]

Per NFL radio what Richardson said was so bad that the other owners in the league have been calling Peyton and Drew to apologize since the meeting.

"Jerry just has a little quarterback envy, that's all."

[Smidgeon]

Why is Jay Feely--who wasn't at the meeting--the one commenting on this story?

[Guiness]

Because this is likely to be a lockout, and not a strike, the owners can't bring in replacement players, right?

If someone could explain why the union is considering de-certifying, and how that would help the players, I'd appreciate that as well!

[Smidgeon]

Because this is likely to be a lockout, and not a strike, the owners can't bring in replacement players, right?

If someone could explain why the union is considering de-certifying, and how that would help the players, I'd appreciate that as well!

1) Correct
2) Decertifying means the league can't lock out the players since there'd be no union to lockout. The decertified union (whose ploy is being sued by the NFL since the union only intends to decertify long enough to file before re-forming) would file an antitrust case once the NFL imposed league-wide rules as a collusion acting oligopoly. But I think the biggest thing it would do would be to re-align the balance of leverage. Right now the league has most of it and the union little. Decertifying and suing the league would rebalance said leverage.

Anyone feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

[Guiness]

A 'collusion acting oligopoly'. That's a mouthful. Google it, select 'feeling lucky' and you end up here

http://books.google.ca/books?id=gnXlGcYZdrwC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&source=bl&ots=heJaBMl4bR&sig=KszTxr-S4dXl76ggS23rt8x50YY&hl=en&ei=as9aTd-pHYSKlwe0o72yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false