official: union decertifies

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pugger]

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Increasing number of days off for players.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

[Cheesehead Craig]

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

Word up dog.

[rbaloha1]

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

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

Maybe if you were a player you would feel otherwise.

[rbaloha1]

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

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

[rbaloha1]

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

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

Who valued it at $2000?

[pbmax]

Who valued it at $2000?

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

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