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

[mraynrand]

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!

I agree:

[RashanGary]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand. They want the players to sign something when they don't know if it could have been better or not.

DeMaurice Smith is clearly an amateur compared to the NFL when it comes to public relations. It's too bad, I think he's the more reasonable party. Not opening the books is preposterous. Just take it to litigation where they'll sign a deal with full disclosure. Smart move, but the NFL chose it by not even being reasonable.

I'll bet the players do better with litigation than this deadline offer. Any takers? I hope it stretches into the season. I'd like to see the owners lose a couple billion and then get bent over in court.

[Lurker64]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand.

"The books" are almost never opened in collective bargaining negotiations. Are you saying that fair deals are never actually accomplished during collective bargaining?

[RashanGary]

I'm saying in litigation they will open the books so the NFLPA would be idiots to just agree to this. Take it all the way. It's their best bet and damn right that's where they wanted to go once they realized the owners were not going to let them see the numbers. Players are getting what they want. Owners aren't. The legal system is on the players side.

[Patler]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand. They want the players to sign something when they don't know if it could have been better or not.

DeMaurice Smith is clearly an amateur compared to the NFL when it comes to public relations. It's too bad, I think he's the more reasonable party. Not opening the books is preposterous. Just take it to litigation where they'll sign a deal with full disclosure. Smart move, but the NFL chose it by not even being reasonable.

I'll bet the players do better with litigation than this deadline offer. Any takers? I hope it stretches into the season. I'd like to see the owners lose a couple billion and then get bent over in court.

There is a fundamental question everyone is ignoring:

If the player's income has increased by 100% in 10 years (which it basically would have under the owners proposal), is it fundamentally unfair if the owners profits grew by 125% (or more) in that same time frame?

You seem to suggest that it is, that fairness is achieved only if the owners profits grow no faster than the players'. I disagree.

[RashanGary]

We don't even know what fairness is, how to measure where it's been or how to predict where it's going, oh unless you take Jerry Jones word in good faith. No thanks, if I'm leading the NFLPA, I'm doing exactly what DeMaurice Smith is doing. Litigation, litigation, litigation. I think they're satisfied with not saying a word to the NFL right now. It's the NFL squirming, putting out these big press releases about how bad and mean DeMaurice Smith was.

[Lurker64]

I'm saying in litigation they will open the books so the NFLPA would be idiots to just agree to this. Take it all the way. It's their best bet and damn right that's where they wanted to go once they realized the owners were not going to let them see the numbers. Players are getting what they want. Owners aren't. The legal system is on the players side.

Why are you so convinced that the books will be opened in litigation. Discovery is an extremely contentious process, and by my count the NFL has better lawyers. It's entirely possible that, in discovery, the NFLPA will get less financial transparency than they were offered at the bargaining table.

To assume that the legal system is on the player's side is simply wrong. The legal system is on nobody's side. That's why it's an effective recourse for resolving disputes, since it's (in principle) unbiased.

[Patler]

We don't even know what fairness is, how to measure where it's been or how to predict where it's going, oh unless you take Jerry Jones word in good faith. No thanks, if I'm leading the NFLPA, I'm doing exactly what DeMaurice Smith is doing. Litigation, litigation, litigation. I think they're satisfied with not saying a word to the NFL right now. It's the NFL squirming, putting out these big press releases about how bad and mean DeMaurice Smith was.

If you are responding to my last question, you lost me with your answer. The number doesn't matter. Is it fair if the owners profits grew more than the players' income, when the players income doubled in 10 years? Keep in mind we are not talking about low paying jobs ro begin with.

[RashanGary]

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

[RashanGary]

If you are responding to my last question, you lost me with your answer. The number doesn't matter. Is it fair if the owners profits grew more than the players' income, when the players income doubled in 10 years? Keep in mind we are not talking about low paying jobs ro begin with.

In the world of negotiating, I don't think the NFL will have a very easy time convincing a shrewd and well trained professional that it's fair. It is where it is right now. Moving forward or backward is harder to accomplish than staying the same. I think that's what the NFL is trying to do, take a step forward with their profits. The NFLPA has the job of keepign it the same or getting better on their end. A lot of money is on the line and the players want to take it to litigation where they believe they'll get their best deal. Why is everyone so mad about that?

[Lurker64]

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

I agree with the supposition that the NFLPA believes that they will get a better deal in court.

What I am questioning, however, is whether the NFLPA will actually get a better deal in court.

It's entirely possible that the NFLPA loses in court, and has to accept a much worse deal, which is why I support negotiation over litigation. Litigation carries risk, negotiation doesn't.

What I am hoping is that the NFLPA simply hopes to use the initial courtroom decisions to move leverage and thereby get a deal done. However, if Judge Nelson doesn't find that granting a preliminary injunction blocking the lockout is appropriate (after all, no game checks are being lost) I'm not sure what the NFLPA will do now that they've lost considerable leverage in this gambit.

[Patler]

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

I am convinced they believe the lawsuit is to their advantage. I have been arguing all along that they stonewalled the negotiation process to get to where they are right now. However, I am not convinced that it will work out the way they hope, if litigation carries through to the end. It might be that all the players want is the uncertainty of litigation, hoping it will cause the owners to relent on a few more issues. Filing the action doesn't mean they want it carried through to the end necessarily.

[ThunderDan]

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

What complete shit by Goodell. Writing a letter to the players telling them this stuff. There was one reason Goodell wrote this letter and one reason only, he is trying to set the players against themselves.

When someone starts a letter the way Goodell did and then starts lecturing about all the OWNERS were giving up you can tell it's a BS piece of garbage. The NFLPA shouldn't have even responded with a letter. They should have written a letter to the players addressing the points and said nothing to the owners.

Goodell states in the letter that their is only one way to resolve the differences and that is in goodfaith. That there needs to be mutual respect and open communication. But the owners make claims on how the are losing profitablility but will only the show the players a fraction of the total financial picture from their books and records. If the owners are truely losing their ability to make profit show the players. As long as the players are only able to negotiate while knowing part of the picture the commish's letter and promous rhetoric is simply puffery. Empty words hoping to sway public opinion and split the players.

[Lurker64]

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.

[ThunderDan]

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.

The intention of that letter was never to get the players back to the table. Why lecture to the players then about everything the OWNERs were giving up? If he was sincere that is not the letter he should have sent.

The battle is going to court, everyone knows this. No letter by Goodell can change that. And as much wishing and thinking that Goodell has the best interest in the sport he simply doesn't. He is the watchdog for the OWNERs.