Injunction Junction

[Guiness]

I have argued for weeks that the NFLPA has an objective other than getting a closer look at the owners books. I would now say they have an objective other than eliminating the draft. Their likely objective(s)? One or more of the following:

Eliminating the salary cap.
Establishing unrestricted FA earlier, perhaps after 3 years.
Eliminating or drastically changing RFAs, ERFAs, tags or anything that binds a veteran to a team beyond the expiration of his contract.

While I kind of agree with you that the players have an an unstated agenda all along, I'm pretty sure it's not the first one. They'd have to be pretty thickheaded to not look at what happened in the uncapped 2010, when many teams didn't meet the previous salary 'floor' and realize getting rid of the cap would be bad.

Not saying it's not possible though. They might convince themselves that 2010 was a one year abberation, and given enough time the NFL owners will act like MLB owners and spend like drunken sailors. The problem with that thinking is that NFL teams aren't corporate owned, so can't use the franchise as a loss leader...like Ted Turner does, or the way Labatt's propped up the Jays to their World Series win.

[retailguy]

maybe I understand perfectly well how it works.

No. You don't understand how it works. Justin, you're a good guy, but you're wrong on this. It's a power struggle, on BOTH sides. Honestly, from a strictly financial standpoint, the owners would probably be better in the short term with no draft, no salary cap and no salary floor.

However, after the golden goose dies, so does everything else.

I stand by what I said at the beginning. What the union is claiming only applies to a few teams, I think 8 at the most. For the remainder, what the owners are claiming is EXACTLY true.

The players union only wants to see a couple of the teams books and doesn't give a shit about the other 25 - 27 teams books. Those couple will be published in their entirety and used to discredit ALL the books. No way in hell would that be a good thing by any definition.

[SkinBasket]

Mabye you don't understand the definition that's actually being used today.

I understand the "definition" that you guys in your cool faded Che Guevara tee shirts like to foist upon the rest of us. It's similar to the "definition" that activist judges appointed by progressive politicians like to advance with their rulings. But just because you believe in it doesn't make it the truth. The trust is, from what you've posted here, you want a communist/socialist system implemented. History has already proven that those systems fail. As they say, "Socialism is for the people, not the socialist."

In the end, the system fails. The evil, nasty owners you've been conditioned through repetition to hate take their ball and go home, unless, of course, Obama signs an executive order forcing them to be owners and forcing them to pay the players whatever they demand while making glorious speeches about building the wealth of the rich on the broken backs of the poor, which at this point honestly wouldn't surprise me. And we have either no football, or a greatly degraded version of football. The owners move on to more profitable ventures, the players make a mere fraction of what they did, and the fans are left with something resembling the XFL. Congratulations. That's some victory.

[RashanGary]

I stand by what I said at the beginning. What the union is claiming only applies to a few teams, I think 8 at the most. For the remainder, what the owners are claiming is EXACTLY true.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I also think you make a lot of sense with the caps being lifted helping the owners and players in the short term. The owners who want to skimp would have more money in their coffers for a few years, but eventually their fan bases would dwindle. The big teams would spend more, win and have more money in their coffers, but as interest in the smaller teams dwindled, so would the TV contracts.

I'm starting to buy what you, Patler, skin and others feel on this, that the owners were being very up front (maybe somewhere in the 90-95% range with a couple bad eggs bringing it down a little.) The owners had a great proposal where you could see the clear intention of growing the league to make the pie bigger for everyone. I can see the players wish to view the full financial info, but if they want to tear apart the fundamentals that helped grow the league into what it is today, I'm very disappointed.

I never thought it was possible, but these idiots are treading dangerously close to killing the golden goose.

[Lurker64]

I'm glad you're coming around to the realization that the folks on both sides here are acting like intransigent idiots JH. I think the real problem is that this is the first rodeo of both Goodell and Smith, and so they're under considerable pressure from their constituency to justify their position by "winning" negotiations. Ultimately, one shouldn't be concerned with "winning" in a situation like this, the fact that the players "won" last time was the reason we got into this mess. We really should have never gotten to this point, since there was a deal to get done. The two sides were what? $200m apart at the end? I wouldn't be surprised if the two sides spend more than that on lawyers before this whole mess is over.

I am firmly convinced that if you swap Goodell for Tagliabue or Smith for Upshaw we would have had a CBA long before now. There's too much macho crap between Goodell and Smith.

[Tarlam!]

I am firmly convinced that if you swap Goodell for Tagliabue or Smith for Upshaw we would have had a CBA long before now. There's too much macho crap between Goodell and Smith.

/thread

[KYPack]

I am firmly convinced that if you swap Goodell for Tagliabue or Smith for Upshaw we would have had a CBA long before now. There's too much macho crap between Goodell and Smith.

Probably. Smith hired on with the understanding that he was gonna play hardball. He was going to shoot the cannon and use the sabre that Upshaw had been waving for 20 years.

Goodell got his gig with the idea that the owners felt they signed a shitty deal last time and wanted to claim back many concessions. Goodell has been a good soldier, but I think he's in over his head. His latest statement to the WSJ read, "I just poo-pooed my pants because I realize the evil players are trying to destroy our cool business and it ain't my or the owners fault"!

A war time commissioner, he ain't.

[RashanGary]

1. Owner sign last deal with Gene Upshaw without opening the books. In exchange for not opening the books, they gave a very player friendly deal but added an opt out clause so they could renegotiate sooner if they needed too. I believe the reason they gave the friendly deal was to set a negotiation precedence of not opening the books, so future negotiations would go their way. They planned ahead a little. Give one now for two later kind of thing.

2. Owners want to sit down and work out a deal. They present a deal that has the clear intention of keeping the league competitive, interesting and even adding a few practical changes like benefits for retired players and a no holding out during the offseason clause. All in all it was just practical and smart for the league. Feed the golden goose, it's hunger is insatiable and it's yield is pure, never ending money and power.

3. Players scratched their head. . . “where do these numbers come from? We won’t cut back the previous deal without seeing why. We will not talk until you provide us full financial info. Show us the golden goose."

4. Owners keep coming back with new deals and little snap shots of the goose laying eggs but there is no way to know how many eggs came between shots. Golden eggs could be anywhere. Players refuse to talk. Players know if they decertify, the CBA and all of the collusion rules agreed to therein will be void. The competitive league environment will be shot and the goldengoose, that is the always growing NFL, will be seriously ill, if not dying. That can all change if the owners do what the players want, that is.

5. Owners cannot lockout players (collusion). Current players lose no money unless the league shuts down (will never happen). Pressure is off players. Time to sit back, smile, and wait.

6 Owners have the choice to either give the players what they want or have a league that will lose competitiveness and ultimately a lot of money, allegedly, if you subscribe to the competitiveness grows the golden goose theory.

7. There is still the question of, “what do they want?” I think it’s to see the books before they work out a deal, but it could be a number of other things. I doubt they're dead set on ruining the competitive balance in the NFL. I think they're smarter than that.

We’ll see how it works out. Once the books are open I have a feeling it all goes smoothly. Goodell is whining about how the big bad wolf is ruining his league. Bah, just do what they say and you'll get your goose back. Your goose isn't dead, it's just being held hostage.

But don't worry all you, the poor goosey goosey gander is not really a person or helpless animal of any sort. The goose is cold money. This is a bunch of greedy people fighting over money. Who gives a shit who wins, other than that football goes on.

[SkinBasket]

3. Players scratched their head. . . “where do these numbers come from? We won’t cut back the previous deal without seeing why. We will not talk until you provide us full financial info. Show us the golden goose."

When were the players asked to "cut back?" As far as I can tell, the salary cap would have continued to rise under the last proposal (not to mention the added benefits for retirees and the freeing of current money for vets via a rookie salary structure), unless you and the players have some secret info you're not sharing...

[SkinBasket]

MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL players urged a federal judge Wednesday to deny the league's request to essentially restore the lockout, saying their careers were at stake.

But demanding the immediate end to the lockout, without any kind of CBA in place, resulting in either a complete and total clusterfuck of unregulated contracts or relying on the same rules the players are suing about, won't be harmful to the league... the owners who EMPLOY you!

Jesus Christ. It's almost like this judge didn't have a fucking clue what she was actually doing by issuing her decision or what the implications for both the owners and the players might possibly be.

[RashanGary]

If the owners are so concerned, they should take it in their own hands. So far, the only thing we know was asked by the players that pretty much sent it to court was teh financial info.

Give that so they can move to the next stage of negotiation. Right now, the players are done with court. They got their ace. They want to play cards. The owners know what the players want, it's on them to get back to the table. The whole time everyone knew the players wanted to decertify to gain leverage. Now they have it. They're ready to play. Its' like the owners have no clue what they're doing. It's not up to the court to babysit their desires. The court is there to uphold the law.

Either give teh players what they're asking for or quit bitching and go with no CBA. That's their choices. It's not in teh courts hands.

If not showiing the financial data is that important to them, then they can go down with the boat. Their choice. And until we here otherwise, that's the only piece of info the players have demanded from day 1, for them to even start talks.

[swede]

I keep hearing the word collusion. Isn't collusion a coordinated set of secret practices that undermine the spirit of a contractual agreement?

How can owners be accused of collusion if they openly agree to quit operating with employees that are not part of a union and have no contract with the owners?

The owners cannot prevent the players from starting their own league or participating in an arena league. If I were the owners I'd keep playing chicken with these malcontents. The next set of employees will work for less.

[get louder at lambeau]

If the owners are so concerned, they should take it in their own hands. So far, the only thing we know was asked by the players that pretty much sent it to court was teh financial info.

Give that so they can move to the next stage of negotiation. Right now, the players are done with court. They got their ace. They want to play cards. The owners know what the players want, it's on them to get back to the table. The whole time everyone knew the players wanted to decertify to gain leverage. Now they have it. They're ready to play. Its' like the owners have no clue what they're doing. It's not up to the court to babysit their desires. The court is there to uphold the law.

Either give teh players what they're asking for or quit bitching and go with no CBA. That's their choices. It's not in teh courts hands.

If not showiing the financial data is that important to them, then they can go down with the boat. Their choice. And until we here otherwise, that's the only piece of info the players have demanded from day 1, for them to even start talks.

You seem to go between well thought out and completely clueless on this. No offense intended when I say that, but it's how it seems to me. It isn't anywhere near "give the players what they're asking for or quit bitching and go with no CBA". That's not even close to reality. You have been pro-player throughout this, which is fine, but it seems to be clouding your vision of what's going on right now.

The reality is that the players have the leverage NOW, based on the judge's ruling. That doesn't mean they will continue to. The NFL gets to appeal that ruling to a higher court, and could even win a stay of the original decision to lift the lockout pending appeal. Then the lockout would be back on, and the leverage would shift back in favor of the owners. The legal battle isn't over yet. It IS in the courts hands, and has been since the players chose to take it there.

[RashanGary]

I keep hearing the word collusion. Isn't collusion a coordinated set of secret practices that undermine the spirit of a contractual agreement?

How can owners be accused of collusion if they openly agree to quit operating with employees that are not part of a union and have no contract with the owners?

The owners cannot prevent the players from starting their own league or participating in an arena league. If I were the owners I'd keep playing chicken with these malcontents. The next set of employees will work for less.

Yeah, that would be really good for the league, to get rid of all the best players. I'm sure Detroit and Jacksonville, Minny and Cinci would all love that when their stadiums aren't full. And what about jersey sales? And then Rodgers and Brady would be in the UFL, you don't think that would pull some money from the NFL? The UFL would double on the spot, maybe quadruple. Even then, they'll have to get a group of players to sign a CBA and even then, those guys would get a union and eventually pull the same stunt if they're not getting paid enough. They can do that every 5 or 6 years just to show what hard asses they are.

Nah, that's not happening. They'll bend over and take it. It's just a matter of how much they'll whine before they give in.

[RashanGary]

It's just like the Pat and Kev case, there is some room for interperatation on the law, but mostly each judge rules pretty similarly. It's just a matter of time. The NFL is arrogant though. They'll try.