Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer

[bobblehead]

Thank you for making the owner's case for them. The NFL's charge before the NLRB is that union bargained in bad faith all along, with no actual interest in getting a deal done and instead preferring litigation. If the NLRB agrees with you, this will potentially undo the NFL's decertification and put the union in a significantly disadvantageous position, staring up at a lockout that they have no recourse to end beyond bargaining.

THE PARTY OF NO!!!!

[rbaloha1]

More stuff from Brandt who studied the "proposal." The salary cap increase is paid to pensions -- not to current player salaries. TV revenue in several years is scheduled to increase from $4 billion to $8 billion. Future proposed salary caps are unreflective of this increased TV revenue.

[Lurker64]

From what I've been able to glean, the kerfuffle over the salary cap proposed last friday is a microcosm of the whole mess.

So the league initially proposes a salary cap structure, and the players propose a more generous one. Last friday, the league says essentially "okay, well... what about this number in the middle?" and what the league presented did not address how the cap might grow if the game grows beyond projections. So instead of asking "well, we might be able to work with that provided the cap increases x% of the total money the league makes beyond projections" the NFLPA presumed that the league was saying "you get none of any money above and beyond projections" and storms out in a huff to file a lawsuit.

I've honestly never seen two groups of adult men, with highly paid lawyers on staff to advise them, less capable of actually communicating with each other.

[mraynrand]

The players' response had the language and stance of a temper tantrum. "You didn't address this and this and this." Well, make a counter offer. For example, what if Moodys is wrong? What is your offer for percentage share of revenue.

If anyone knows of a responsible counter-offer that the players made, I'd appreciate the link. Otherwise, I have to believe those who said the players were interested in forcing litigation from the start.

[rbaloha1]

The players' response had the language and stance of a temper tantrum. "You didn't address this and this and this." Well, make a counter offer. For example, what if Moodys is wrong? What is your offer for percentage share of revenue.

If anyone knows of a responsible counter-offer that the players made, I'd appreciate the link. Otherwise, I have to believe those who said the players were interested in forcing litigation from the start.

Players always wanted litigation since according to Brandt it speeds up the negotiating process. Again its no different than the owners always wanting a lock-out to prevent the 2010 contract being enforced for the 2011 season. Show me the money!

[Lurker64]

Players always wanted litigation since according to Brandt it speeds up the negotiating process. Again its no different than the owners always wanting a lock-out to prevent the 2010 contract being enforced for the 2011 season. Show me the money!

Litigation does not speed up the negotiating process. Negotiating speeds up the negotiation process. The players want litigation because they think they can get the best deal that way. Not because it's fair, or because it's efficient, but because that's how they think they can get the best deal. Like the lockout, it's just about creating leverage.

The interesting thing about the litigation strategy, is that if it backfires on the players they will have given the league a whole lot of leverage. Litigation carries risk for everybody involved (except the lawyers.)

[rbaloha1]

Litigation does not speed up the negotiating process. Negotiating speeds up the negotiation process. The players want litigation because they think they can get the best deal that way. Not because it's fair, or because it's efficient, but because that's how they think they can get the best deal. Like the lockout, it's just about creating leverage.

The interesting thing about the litigation strategy, is that if it backfires on the players they will have given the league a whole lot of leverage. Litigation carries risk for everybody involved (except the lawyers.)

B.S. The owners wanted to stall through negotiations. Major issues shall be resolved on April 6 due to litigation not negotiating. True negotiating starts after April 6. Brandt stated on espn radio everything is in place for an agreement -- its early in the negotiating process and both sides do not want to show their hand too early.

Litigation forces the owners to negotiate on more than just the easy takes.

[Patler]

here is a copy of the commish's letter...

http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110317/letter_goodell_3_17_2011.pdf

here is a copy of the player's response to it...

http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/19...ond/#more-1245

WOW! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the players response! If anyone needed more evidence that the NFLPA was not negotiating, but stalling, this letter is proof.

All players did was complain, criticize and demean offers put on the table by the owners. Not so much as a comment about a counteroffer from the players. Nothing that the players did in an effort to narrow the gap. It appears the "negotiations" went like this:

Players: "Make an offer"
Owners: "Here's a proposed framework."
Players: "Not good enough. Make a better offer."
Owners: "How about this?"
Players: "Nope, still not acceptable."
Owners: "Maybe this?"
Players: "Still not good enough. See you in court."

I would have expected the players to respond by explaining how they, in good faith, had tried to work toward a settlement. They offered absolutely no evidence of that.

[Lurker64]

Major issues shall be resolved on April 6 due to litigation not negotiating. True negotiating starts after April 6.

If you think that anything is actually going to be decided on April 6, you seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Hearings for a preliminary injunction blocking a lockout *start* on April 6, to say nothing about the time it takes to reach a decision, and inevitable appeals (whichever side loses here will appeal). The actual details of Brady v. NFL won't be heard for months. A deal could get done by negotiating well before that.

Brandt stated on espn radio everything is in place for an agreement -- its early in the negotiating process and both sides do not want to show their hand too early.

Could you link to the podcast of the show? Or at least the name of the show, and the date and approximate time? This is at odds with everything that he's written for the NFP.

[rbaloha1]

If you think that anything is actually going to be decided on April 6, you seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Hearings for a preliminary injunction blocking a lockout *start* on April 6, to say nothing about the time it takes to reach a decision, and inevitable appeals (whichever side loses here will appeal). The actual details of Brady v. NFL won't be heard for months. A deal could get done by negotiating well before that.



Could you link to the podcast of the show? Or at least the name of the show, and the date and approximate time? This is at odds with everything that he's written for the NFP.

Dude, you do not understand the process according to Brandt. E-mail him. Seriously -- things can not always be explained with your mathematical equations.

Arrogant owners and Show Me the Money Players can not be easily resolved with formal negotiations.

If Mr. Smith hired you as a paid consultant how would you advise him in obtaining the best deal possible for the players?

[Lurker64]

When you assume that two sides in a negotiation are fundamentally unwilling to budge, then yes... litigation is pretty much your only means of forcing the other side to agree with you. However, assuming that two parties are fundamentally unwilling to budge in a negotiation defeats the actual purpose of negotiation. Obviously the owners were willing to budge, and if the players weren't then that bodes poorly for their ability to fend off the "sham decertification" charges.

One shouldn't get involved in negotiation unless one is willing to negotiate, and if you can't find anybody on your side who is actually willing to negotiate, then you really need to reconsider your stance.

[SkinBasket]

WOW! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the players response! If anyone needed more evidence that the NFLPA was not negotiating, but stalling, this letter is proof.

All players did was complain, criticize and demean offers put on the table by the owners. Not so much as a comment about a counteroffer from the players. Nothing that the players did in an effort to narrow the gap. It appears the "negotiations" went like this:

Players: "Make an offer"
Owners: "Here's a proposed framework."
Players: "Not good enough. Make a better offer."
Owners: "How about this?"
Players: "Nope, still not acceptable."
Owners: "Maybe this?"
Players: "Still not good enough. See you in court."

I would have expected the players to respond by explaining how they, in good faith, had tried to work toward a settlement. They offered absolutely no evidence of that.

Once again, it really appears that neither the players or their representatives had the mental capacity to negotiate. This letter evidences that the player position has been little more than "you didn't give us what we demanded." I don't think it was a communication problem, as someone suggested earlier. I think it was a understanding problem on the players part, of what exactly was being offered, what the consequences of the offer or litigation are (just like a couple folks here), and that when they broke from negotiations, they needed a plan to move forward that didn't involve making idiots out of themselves and their position on a daily basis. Like I said, like dealing with monkeys. Greedy monkeys.

[swede]

Like I said, like dealing with monkeys. Greedy monkeys.

Simian Rice?

[swede]

Chimp Bailey? Frank Gorilla?

[Pugger]

To me it is becoming obvious the players want things to stay as they were in the old CBA and the owners say their profits are dropping because of player costs so they opted out. The ONLY thing I care about is what is good for the Green Bay Packers and I fear the players are hell bent on eliminating the salary cap and revenue sharing. As Packer fans we should be leary of this!