What's going on with the TV money?

[pbmax]

Really? They only want 70% of the 2011 TV contract...

If the league used money that would have been available to them from the Networks to purchase the lockout payments, then some portion of the underpayment would have otherwise flowed to the players. I might be missing something, but how does the request for $707 million mean that money is from the 2011 fees?

[Guiness]

If the league used money that would have been available to them from the Networks to purchase the lockout payments, then some portion of the underpayment would have otherwise flowed to the players. I might be missing something, but how does the request for $707 million mean that money is from the 2011 fees?

There was a decision for $6million at some point. I thought it was the special master, but can't seem to find that. I wonder how it relates.

[pbmax]

That was for the inclusion of one additional Sunday Night Game, opposite the World Series. I am not sure how that came to be, but that was the basis of the finding.

[get louder at lambeau]

Here's an article that mentions what you guys are talking about with the Special Master and all-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_nfl_union_tv_contracts

[SkinBasket]

There was a decision for $6million at some point. I thought it was the special master, but can't seem to find that. I wonder how it relates.

That was the ruling this judge decided to overturn.

Doty’s decision on March 1 reversed much of a ruling in February by Stephen Burbank, the special master who determined the N.F.L. could have access to the broadcast money and awarded the players only $6.9 million. The players have accused the league of renegotiating broadcast contracts for 2009 and 2010 in anticipation of a lockout, which the league has denied...

Gregg Levy, the lead lawyer for the league, said the players were not entitled to damages because they never asked for any before the special master. He also said the league never intended to finance a lockout with the television money and planned to use only a small portion of it. Levy declined to say how much.

Should be interesting to see if the procedural point raised by Levy is ignored by this judge. Of course, all the players want is for the judge to play keep away with the money anyway, so it probably doesn't matter.

[MJZiggy]

No it's not the same. No example will be. But the players are fighting an anti-trust fight in the hopes of being treated like non-union employees that fall under the exact same labor laws any other non-unionized employee does. Yet, they, and others, still argue they should have special bargaining rights, like having a part in negotiating business decisions to their favor - to the detriment of the owners, that most labor unions could only dream of negotiating into a CBA. You continue to disregard ownership as a "party" in their own negotiations, measuring only the hypothetical damage to the players, who knew a long time ago just as well as the owners did that a stoppage was more than likely this summer.

So the question for you becomes: where do you draw the line between ownership and employee? Using your criteria of "decisions that affect employees" entirely eliminates ownership's ability to make any kind of decision that benefits the business (and by extension, *gasp* the employee), so I think we need something a little less socialistic than that. What rights do an owner have in your mind?

Interesting logic, but at the time the deals were made, there most certainly was a union. Non-union is a non-issue here. They were trying to set themselves up to maximize their benefit should there be a labor dispute that they fully expected there to be. Because of the setup between the union and the league, it was at the expense of both the league and the union. I fully understand that ownership should have ability to make decisions that benefit employees. This just isn't one of them as it not only doesn't benefit the employees, but works to their detriment.

[SkinBasket]

Interesting logic, but at the time the deals were made, there most certainly was a union. Non-union is a non-issue here. They were trying to set themselves up to maximize their benefit should there be a labor dispute that they fully expected there to be.

You're going to have to make a distinction here. You were arguing that the association should have the right to a place at the table in negotiating business deals with the league going forward, I thought. At least that's what you said. So is this about the 2011 money, or the previous deals?

Because of the setup between the union and the league, it was at the expense of both the league and the union.

You'll need to explain that one a bit. So any decision the league makes that doesn't benefit the union, or [not]union now, is inherently against the league's own self-interest? The league negotiated a network deal that hedged their business interests against a work stoppage. Turns out they were right to do so.

I fully understand that ownership should have ability to make decisions that benefit employees.

I know you do. Really, I do.

This just isn't one of them as it not only doesn't benefit the employees, but works to their detriment.

Not every decision that is best for the business of the league as a whole is going to benefit the players. In fact, as I've pointed out, the owners have the interests of the continued success of the teams, and the league, as their top priority. The players are only looking to get as much for themselves as they can as quickly as possible without any regard for the present or future of the financial well-being of the league. They've made that abundantly clear. The players are not, by default, right. Nor do they have a business plan, no matter how nice Tom Bradey's smile is or how endearing Drew's birthmark is. Them getting paid more does not translate to greater league success. In fact the inverse is true, that greater league success, has, and will continue to be, the golden goose that leads to larger salaries. The same golden goose they are so desperately trying to assfuck and throw in the ditch.

[mraynrand]

Can't any contractual obligations as a legal matter extend beyond the expiration of a deal? If I owe you money as a result of a contract covering 2009, certainly it would be within your right to attempt to collect that money through legal means beyond calendar 2009?

Mr. Hart, do you know the difference between a condition on a promise and a promise? I am waiting, Mr. Hart!