official: union decertifies

[mraynrand]

Good use of innumerate

[SkinBasket]

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

Your understanding of negotiations, proposals, and agreements is amazingly dunce-like.

[mraynrand]

Your understanding of negotiations, proposals, and agreements is amazingly dunce-like.

I decided to let this stuff go. Put these guys on your ignore list and move on - you only see their bizarre comments in a response, and overall you waste less of your time scrolling through. Then rbahole can talk slavery all he wants to himself.

[rbaloha1]

Your understanding of negotiations, proposals, and agreements is amazingly dunce-like.

I shall wear the dunce cap with great pride. I guess talking points are a proposal that can be presented to the rank and file for a vote -- my bad.

[rbaloha1]

I decided to let this stuff go. Put these guys on your ignore list and move on - you only see their bizarre comments in a response, and overall you waste less of your time scrolling through. Then rbahole can talk slavery all he wants to himself.

Were your ancestors slave masters?

[SkinBasket]

my bad.

I believe the proper structure is, "I'm bad." As in, "I'm bad at this thinking thing."

[Tarlam!]

I decided to let this stuff go. Put these guys on your ignore list and move on - you only see their bizarre comments in a response, and overall you waste less of your time scrolling through. Then rbahole can talk slavery all he wants to himself.

I disagree with his positions, but he isn't personally attacking any posters. This is a discussion board; what's the point of only reading posters you agree with?

[Lurker64]

I guess talking points are a proposal that can be presented to the rank and file for a vote -- my bad.

Have you ever looked at an actual NFL CBA? They're roughly 350 pages long. It's not something you draft overnight in order to submit to the other guys in hopes they agree to it.

The way these things work is that sides discuss the framework of an agreement, and when all points of contention are agreed to in principle, the CBA is written collectively by a pack of lawyers from both sides.

You propose a framework not a complete document, in order to give the other side something to think about and to receive their counteroffer.

[Tarlam!]

I disagree with his positions, but he isn't personally attacking any posters. This is a discussion board; what's the point of only reading posters you agree with?

Guess I'm on Rand's ignore list.

[rbaloha1]

Have you ever looked at an actual NFL CBA? They're roughly 350 pages long. It's not something you draft overnight in order to submit to the other guys in hopes they agree to it.

The way these things work is that sides discuss the framework of an agreement, and when all points of contention are agreed to in principle, the CBA is written collectively by a pack of lawyers from both sides.

You propose a framework not a complete document, in order to give the other side something to think about and to receive their counteroffer.

What?

[Lurker64]

What?

A collective bargaining agreement is not something you offer. A CBA is hundreds of pages long and takes days if not weeks to write. In negotiations, particularly against a deadline, you don't submit a complete agreement. You submit the framework for an agreement, and if the other side agrees with your framework then the two sides, together, write the final document. Once an agreement is reached, in principle, the deadline is irrelevant.

[RashanGary]

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.

They don't want to see numbers that have no real meaning. They want to see where the numbers came from so they can confirm everything is accurate.

You're probably the most decent of the pro owner group. You're right, if the players really didn't care to see the books opened, I agree with you.

I think, to the players, taking any type of pay cut from the last agreement is going to require opening the books so they can agree profits really were dwindling and make a solid decision. Getting incomplete numbers thrown at them insults their intelligence and they refuse to even talk on that term.

You think the info the NFL owners gave the players is legit. I think the PA sees it as an insult to not see the books open. That's were we disagree. I'm fine with that and I'll be fine if I'm wrong.

[Smidgeon]

They don't want to see numbers that have no real meaning. They want to see where the numbers came from so they can confirm everything is accurate.

Are you sure about that? I thought they turned down information audited by a third party. Wouldn't that also provide accurate information without divulging the unnecessary?

[RashanGary]

Are you sure about that? I thought they turned down information audited by a third party. Wouldn't that also provide accurate information without divulging the unnecessary?

I've seen it written that the numbers they turned down were audited by a 3rd party, but not in a way that any any real meaning what-so-ever. The last time teh NFL tried to give numbers like that, when the books were opened, they were exposed as liars. Well, more "not-truth-tellers" than liars, but dishonest none the less in a way that would get them more money. The NFLPA is having none of it.

If people don't believe their real goal is to see the numbers so they can work a fair deal, then why go through with this? That's exactly what is going to happen in court.

The NFLPA is dead set on seeing the numbers before they negotiate. They'll do it one way or the other. The Owners, by not opening the books, chose court. If they did it the other way, they'd be at the table getting the final details to a sweet 18 game season ironed out.

[pbmax]

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.

Link with that Mawae quote?