official: union decertifies

[Bretsky]

Link?

Listen to the NFL network on Sirius Radio channel 124
you get way more good info than these stupid articles

[Bretsky]

Here is the Murphy interview from Florio on PFT Live:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ew-transcript/

not the one I heard but interesting to hear this one also

[Bretsky]

This is interesting. For some reason I trust Mark Murphy more than Jones or Richardson.

he was very sincere and I learned from listening to him as he discussed how he's worked from all angles

I am completely convinced the players walked away because they thought they could do better through litigation

[MJZiggy]

he was very sincere and I learned from listening to him as he discussed how he's worked from all angles

I am completely convinced the players walked away because they thought they could do better through litigation

They might be able to. It might have been in their best interest. However I also buy the show-me-the-money angle. It's hard to negotiate from a position of good faith if you don't know what position you're bargaining from. And after what the league pulled with the $4 billion (with a b) tv deal that they tried to keep hidden, I don't know that I'd trust their 3rd party offer either.

[rbaloha1]

he was very sincere and I learned from listening to him as he discussed how he's worked from all angles

I am completely convinced the players walked away because they thought they could do better through litigation

Off course they did. How else do you negotiate with arrogant owners when the law is on your side? Both parties followed through on their threats.

[mraynrand]

Off course they did. How else do you negotiate with arrogant owners when the law is on your side?

typically, you make a counter-offer.

[rbaloha1]

typically, you make a counter-offer.

The owners never offered anything. They only wanted to continue negotiations wishfully hoping the players caved-in. No way Jose.

[mraynrand]

The owners never offered anything. They only wanted to continue negotiations wishfully hoping the players caved-in. No way Jose.

That's news to me

[rbaloha1]

That's news to me

“The proposal we made was not a full collective bargaining agreement,” Murphy said. “It was the basis for future discussions.”

[RashanGary]

typically, you make a counter-offer.

Kind of difficult when the infomration you need to make an offer is kept from you.

[RashanGary]

The NFLPA has been reasonable since day one. If it's 16 games, they're not taking less than we previously agreed on. If it's 18 games, they're getting paid more. If you have good reason otherwise, lets open the books and come to a fair deal. The owners have been completely unwilling to do what it takes to work out a fair deal. As far as a counter proposal, there is no way to counter prosose when you don't even know what the pie looks like.

In summary, once the books are open, a good fair deal can be worked out. If the owners don't want to do that, they really don't want to make a deal and everything else they do is just public posturing and really just insulting to the players association.

If I'm the players association, I'd say, "we want teh same deal we just opted out of, it's proportional equivelant if we go to 18 games or open the books so we can work out a fair deal. Until you're willing to do that, don't call." And I'd drag this out till the end of forever and make the owners miss a season while promising benefits to the players who are doing this because they're losing money to advance the future players cause.

In the words of Demaurice Smith, "This is happening." The owners made sure of it.

[vince]

[sharpe1027]

I'm confused. I thought the lockout could only be enacted against the union. So there is a lockout of individual players? Based on what? There is that lawsuit, but I thought not all players are named on it. What justification is there for a lockout by owners of individual players with which they have a contract?

It is a class action, the named players are supposed to be representative of all the players.

As to the justification. The justification for the lawsuit is probably that all of the owners are colluding to depress the wages of workers by refusing to honor each of their individual contracts for the purpose of artificially suppressing their wages. The argument is that the owners are not acting as competitive businesses and are instead working together in an anticompetitive fashion.

[mraynrand]

Oh, it's class action. The second part I get - but it didn't make sense if the players weren't either bargaining together or suing together.

[Lurker64]

"we want teh same deal we just opted out of, it's proportional equivelant if we go to 18 games or open the books so we can work out a fair deal. Until you're willing to do that, don't call."

Considering that the president of the players association, Kevin Mawae, was on record saying that the old CBA was unbalanced in favor of the players... "the same deal" was never going to be on the table from the perspective of the owners. A fair deal, yes, a deal in favor of the players? Absolutely not.

The fact that the Players Association was hammering on the "open your books" line for two years and when they were offered financial information they turned it down (not saying "we'd like more but we'll look at that", literally said "no thanks") means that "open your books" was never actually a serious request. The NFLPA likely just wanted to be able to throw whatever they found back at the owners to create leverage in the court of public opinion, meager profits for billion dollar businesses would seem excessive to the innumerate layperson.