official: union decertifies

[RashanGary]

I don't think the players have anything to hide or lie about. I think they want the truth out there a fair deal can be worked out. I do think the owners have things to hide, just like they did 20 years ago and to keep it hidden, I think they are being much more manipulative. History already proves them to be dishonest in these types of labor agreements. The courts have already set precedence on what they want shown during the last court assisted labor negotiation. To quote woodbuck here, "Peppers was just throwing Favre under the bus." With that in mind, a note to you, sometimes relativity just sounds silly.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out. My guess is since the last CBA several owners have been hiding profits from the CBA pot and they want that hidden from this agreement.

And the big deceit the 1700 players are all keeping from us? Common sense says they just want to see the full financial data so they're not being deceived again. If there was some big motive, I think we all know those bone heads would have spilled it by now. Maybe Demaurice Smith is fooling the players and has some big conspiracy up hsi sleeve where he gets rich at the expense of everyone, bwa ha ha. . . Too tricky, highly doubtful, but maybe. I'll give it a 10% chance. MOre likely he just wants to do a good job so he can get some of the best work in our country after this high profile negotiation.

I think you're reaching here, Patler. To me, you sound like the Favre fans saying both sides need to apologize for Favre's bizarre actions. It's not always right in the middle. My judgment says the players are being far more direct in this one. My interpretation of the best available evidence points to it, I think it's obvious and clear, but we'll see. You can disregard all evidence like you did above by saying who knows what is fact, who knows what happened for sure. That's exactly what the Favre crowd still does. I see it as a last ditch effort to hang on to a shattered set of opinions.

[Patler]

Big difference between the personal matter of Favre and the strictly business negotiations of the owners and union. The lawyers on staff for the union are just as cold and calculating as the lawyers for the owners. For all the Jones and other owners you don't like, there is a Rooney who is loved by players and employees. As a group they are probably something inbetween. I doubt the Rooneys of the group would allow them to be as outright dishonest as you have implied.

Comparing now to 1992 is comparing apples to oranges. You have to look at where the parties were in 1992 and where they are now. Before 1992 there was no salary cap, nothing tied to revenues, and the owners shared little to no financial information with the players. There wasn't even a union in 1992, just an association as the union was still de-certified to pursue the antitrust litigation. Fast forward to 2010, the cap has been around since 1994, with the amount tied to revenues. As a result, for nearly 20 years there have been annual exchanges of financial data. It was easy for owners to hide information in 1992 because there was no annual vetting. Don't kid yourself, the NFLPA has had highly paid consultants digging into the owners data that has been required each year. Hiding significant money is more difficult. Have some owners pushed the limits? I guarantee it. But I doubt there are amounts significant to the cap. Oh, if the players find any (I should say "when" they find some, because they will) they will rant and rave about it and make it SOUND like a big deal, but it won't be.

Since the owners served notice of reopening the CBA, the players planned a strategy that included antitrust litigation, and not just to get better financial information. There is no other reasonable explanation for their refusal to even look at what the owners offered.

They want the anti-trust litigation for much more than just knowing how much Jerry Jones pays himself.

Don't take it wrong, I'm not saying the players are evil because of it. They just have higher goals than you give them credit for. Too much expense and too much risk just to get some increment of greater detail than they currently receive or were offered.

[MJZiggy]

All I know is that SOMEONE needs to give Nick Barnett something more to do. TOO MUCH INFORMATION, BRO!!!!

[SkinBasket]

Even skinbasket who writes like has a high level of intelligence is confused by this. How did they lose money in that situation? Yeah, you said it but you can't explain it at all. You're just confused.

I'm not confused. As usual, you make more assumptions than factual points, then demand the other person defend themselves against your imagined genius.

It was an example of... ah fuck it, you're obviously not going to make an actual effort to understand what an "example" is, much less how it relates to the issue on a broader scale, so what's the point? You'll just go hold the sign like you're supposed to.

[Lurker64]

Florio writes at length on something that's been bothering me here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-it-both-ways/

If a tactic is available to both sides, it's troublingly asymmetrical that one side has no legal means to block that tactic while the other side does. Lockouts and strikes are legitimate, and as long as one is a valid tactic the other should be as well.

[Guiness]

Big difference between the personal matter of Favre and the strictly business negotiations of the owners and union. The lawyers on staff for the union are just as cold and calculating as the lawyers for the owners. For all the Jones and other owners you don't like, there is a Rooney who is loved by players and employees. As a group they are probably something inbetween. I doubt the Rooneys of the group would allow them to be as outright dishonest as you have implied.

Comparing now to 1992 is comparing apples to oranges. You have to look at where the parties were in 1992 and where they are now. Before 1992 there was no salary cap, nothing tied to revenues, and the owners shared little to no financial information with the players. There wasn't even a union in 1992, just an association as the union was still de-certified to pursue the antitrust litigation. Fast forward to 2010, the cap has been around since 1994, with the amount tied to revenues. As a result, for nearly 20 years there have been annual exchanges of financial data. It was easy for owners to hide information in 1992 because there was no annual vetting. Don't kid yourself, the NFLPA has had highly paid consultants digging into the owners data that has been required each year. Hiding significant money is more difficult. Have some owners pushed the limits? I guarantee it. But I doubt there are amounts significant to the cap. Oh, if the players find any (I should say "when" they find some, because they will) they will rant and rave about it and make it SOUND like a big deal, but it won't be.

Since the owners served notice of reopening the CBA, the players planned a strategy that included antitrust litigation, and not just to get better financial information. There is no other reasonable explanation for their refusal to even look at what the owners offered.

They want the anti-trust litigation for much more than just knowing how much Jerry Jones pays himself.

Don't take it wrong, I'm not saying the players are evil because of it. They just have higher goals than you give them credit for. Too much expense and too much risk just to get some increment of greater detail than they currently receive or were offered.

You've mentioned this ulterior motive the players have before, and I'm still trying to read between the lines - and figure out if there's something there, or you're a conspiracy theorist!

I don't see what it could be. The only thing that I can come up with, that's big enough to cause all this trouble over, is that they want to get a ruling by the courts to break the league, and set something up where the players become part owners. The NFL co-operative!

[SkinBasket]

Florio writes at length on something that's been bothering me here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-it-both-ways/

If a tactic is available to both sides, it's troublingly asymmetrical that one side has no legal means to block that tactic while the other side does. Lockouts and strikes are legitimate, and as long as one is a valid tactic the other should be as well.

Ha! Welcome to the world of labor law in the U.S.

The employer is almost always bound, gagged and anal foreplay is initiated in any court, arbitration, or other dispute concerning labor before the proceedings even begin. You have legal systems and government agencies stuffed full of liberal progressives, or in the case of the NLRB, actually headed by a former union attorney, who quite literally make up whatever result they want while disregarding the law completely in some cases. Judicial activism has become the norm throughout the court system.

The employee, even when professional represented, is always granted every concession. Deadlines are waived. Procedural matters become suggestions. The evil employers, however, are regularly chastised by the court or board, default if they miss a deadline by an hour, and are expected to serve up their own head on a platter if asked.

This is no different. Unions have worked very hard for a very long time to ensure that the employee, any employee, is always at an advantage here, even when they have no legal, moral, or logical standing or backing against their employer.

[Tarlam!]

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. "Liberal" in the US of A is different than in many other parts of the world. In Oz and germany, e.g., liberal means free from government interfierence. Like, privatise EVERYTHING and let the market decide for itself. I'm a liberal under this definition.

[SkinBasket]

The progressive movement has taken over the agenda of the "liberal" political institution again here, so I guess that would be a more fitting term than liberal. That way, when people recognize that progressive policies fail, the liberal party can dump the progressive label and wait another few decades to try again.

[Tarlam!]

The progressive movement has taken over the agenda of the "liberal" political institution again here, so I guess that would be a more fitting term than liberal. That way, when people recognize that progressive policies fail, the liberal party can dump the progressive label and wait another few decades to try again.

Too high for me, J, but if you say so.....