Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[mraynrand]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?

You understand plenty. I remember there was a peasant in the Sudetenland who asked the same thing about Konrad Henlein when they decertified.

[SkinBasket]

Perhaps you guys talked about this before and I missed it, but I'm confused on one point (well, many other points, but most of the stuff you talked about was way over my head in previous posts), how can the labor union head be included in all these discussions and what not if there isn't a union anymore? It just seems so.. I don't know, back handed or something. I mean, I get why he's there and why he's important in all this stuff... that the the union really isn't gone, it's just hiding, but how is this guy being allowed into the labor talks? Isn't his very presence proof that the union is still there and that their decertifing is somehow a bad faith dirty trick move that shouldn't be allowed?

I wouldn't think it would help their position in their argument before the NLRB that the players were not negotiating in good faith and the decertification was a sham. But Smith doesn't seem so good with the subtlety of things does he? I'm sure there's nothing illegal about it, as an association probably has the right to be represented by whomever it chooses, but yeah, the impression it gives isn't very convincing.

[retailguy]

I wouldn't think it would help their position in their argument before the NLRB that the players were not negotiating in good faith and the decertification was a sham. But Smith doesn't seem so good with the subtlety of things does he? I'm sure there's nothing illegal about it, as an association probably has the right to be represented by whomever it chooses, but yeah, the impression it gives isn't very convincing.

I think this issue is the union's biggest problem right now. On the surface (and under it too), it looks like gamesmanship because it is that. Their actions show that they really weren't "negotiating in good faith" because if they didn't get what they wanted they'd just try it a different way.

I'm not saying that the NFL is behaving like Mother Teresa either, however, but at the 11th hour, they were trying to negotiate with alternate proposals. I don't recall one counter offer of substance from the Union. It seems that all along, it was either, meet our demands or we'll decertify and get the courts to give us what we want.

If it weren't for this, I think the majority of the fans would be united behind the players. While they aren't "little guys" by normal standards, compared to the owners they are, and America tends to lean that way, unless there is a compelling reason. Decertification gave it to us, I guess.

[Bossman641]

Even in defeat, De Smith rolls out the rhetoric

Posted by Mike Florio on May 16, 2011, 11:22 PM EDT
Getty ImagesIn response to the recent remarks of NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith comparing the labor dispute to a mob war, we suggested that Smith dial back the rhetoric. But now, even with his effort to lift the lockout on the verge of sleeping with the fishes, Smith continues to talk tough.
“It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,” Smith told reporters after Monday’s ruling. “Congratulations.”

We’re not sure what that means.
The league hasn’t sued anyone. The league wants to impose economic pressure on the players via a lockout, and the players decertified and filed an antitrust lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the lockout. Today’s ruling that the lockout won’t be lifted pending resolution of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit hardly represents the NFL suing to not plays its game.
With a reversal of Judge Nelson’s ruling now looming, Smith’s comments likely have less to do with shaping public opinion and more to do with scrambling to keep the players unified, even if doing so requires Smith to distort the facts in the hopes of playing to the players’ emotions.
The problem is that, while such comments may be help keep the players on the same page, they’ll make it harder for the players and the league to ever make it into the same library again.

I saw the clip of smith making this quote. At the beginning I didn't care who won much but the union' s sham acts and smiths smugness really turned me off the players.

[Tony Oday]

I have always been on the side of the owner's...the players in my opinion are lucky to get paid what they do...you don't see football teams with billions in profits and they could. A smart politician could say "hey we want a cut on football games too take it out of the players end because they get paid too much and we need to redistribute wealth."

[Guiness]

I think this issue is the union's biggest problem right now. On the surface (and under it too), it looks like gamesmanship because it is that. Their actions show that they really weren't "negotiating in good faith" because if they didn't get what they wanted they'd just try it a different way.

I'm not saying that the NFL is behaving like Mother Teresa either, however, but at the 11th hour, they were trying to negotiate with alternate proposals. I don't recall one counter offer of substance from the Union. It seems that all along, it was either, meet our demands or we'll decertify and get the courts to give us what we want.

If it weren't for this, I think the majority of the fans would be united behind the players. While they aren't "little guys" by normal standards, compared to the owners they are, and America tends to lean that way, unless there is a compelling reason. Decertification gave it to us, I guess.

I agree that neither party has much of a morale highground here, and both sides have taken their turns pissing me off with their positions.

But on the issue of offers, I don't blame the players for not making one. Their main demand has been steady demand since the beginning - show us your unabridged books. Whether you think they deserve to see them, or the owners should be forced to disclose them is another matter. The players have asked to see them, and their position is that they can't put together an offer until they do.

This is one point I happen to agree with them on, and it's the owners offers that have convinced me. The differences between their original offer, and their later ones (what we know of them, at least) they moved a LOT. To the point that it looks like they'd rather give up more than hand over the books, which makes me feel like their trying to hide something.

I think the union would likely accept one of the later proposals, if they were shown the books and didn't find anything fishy. I also think the leaks out of the NFLPA wrt sensitive team financial data would make your hair curl.

[Patler]

I have always been on the side of the owner's...the players in my opinion are lucky to get paid what they do...you don't see football teams with billions in profits and they could. A smart politician could say "hey we want a cut on football games too take it out of the players end because they get paid too much and we need to redistribute wealth."

It would certainly be reasonable for politicians to argue that both owners and players should make less to have sufficient money to pay their own way in remodeling stadiums or building new ones. It seems a bit absurd having teams begging for taxpayer money to build a place for them to work when the average player income is about $2 million.

[Patler]

I agree that neither party has much of a morale highground here, and both sides have taken their turns pissing me off with their positions.

But on the issue of offers, I don't blame the players for not making one. Their main demand has been steady demand since the beginning - show us your unabridged books. Whether you think they deserve to see them, or the owners should be forced to disclose them is another matter. The players have asked to see them, and their position is that they can't put together an offer until they do.

This is one point I happen to agree with them on, and it's the owners offers that have convinced me. The differences between their original offer, and their later ones (what we know of them, at least) they moved a LOT. To the point that it looks like they'd rather give up more than hand over the books, which makes me feel like their trying to hide something.

I think the union would likely accept one of the later proposals, if they were shown the books and didn't find anything fishy. I also think the leaks out of the NFLPA wrt sensitive team financial data would make your hair curl.

The part that has bothered me about the players position is that it sort of assumes that they are entitled to some given percentage of the income, or that there is a limit on the amount that an owner should make. I don't agree with either of those positions.

I don't object to the players holding tough and "demanding" to see the books, but in the end I think it is the owners right to refuse to show them. Then it would come down to who caves in first, and that would be fine with me. If the owners caved, I would be fine with that. If the players did, that would be OK too.

[SkinBasket]

It would certainly be reasonable for politicians to argue that both owners and players should make less to have sufficient money to pay their own way in remodeling stadiums or building new ones. It seems a bit absurd having teams begging for taxpayer money to build a place for them to work when the average player income is about $2 million.

That was my thought before for all the people clamoring about how the government should be able to control the owners because taxes fund stadiums. Fine, make the owners pay for the stadiums and see just how much is left for the players. Team salary caps would be closer to $30 million than $130.

[Patler]

The part that has bothered me about the players position is that it sort of assumes that they are entitled to some given percentage of the income, or that there is a limit on the amount that an owner should make. I don't agree with either of those positions.

I don't object to the players holding tough and "demanding" to see the books, but in the end I think it is the owners right to refuse to show them. Then it would come down to who caves in first, and that would be fine with me. If the owners caved, I would be fine with that. If the players did, that would be OK too.

That was my thought before for all the people clamoring about how the government should be able to control the owners because taxes fund stadiums. Fine, make the owners pay for the stadiums and see just how much is left for the players. Team salary caps would be closer to $30 million than $130.

Even at that, average player salaries could be a half-million or more; which in the overall scheme of society should be more than adequate. It would still put them in the very highest compensation levels for workers.

[get louder at lambeau]

The part that has bothered me about the players position is that it sort of assumes that they are entitled to some given percentage of the income, or that there is a limit on the amount that an owner should make. I don't agree with either of those positions.

I don't object to the players holding tough and "demanding" to see the books, but in the end I think it is the owners right to refuse to show them. Then it would come down to who caves in first, and that would be fine with me. If the owners caved, I would be fine with that. If the players did, that would be OK too.

That's about how I see it too.

The players want to see the books to justify what they see as a pay cut, based on comparison to what they would have gotten from the old CBA if it was still in effect going forward. They would still get more money every year under the new NFL proposal (from right before the lockout), as I understand it, but their pay wouldn't be as high as it would have been under the old CBA, because it wouldn't be tied as closely to overall revenue. They view that as a pay cut, even though they would make more money every year. That isn't a pay cut. It's still a raise if you get more money every year. It's just not as big of a raise as they are hoping to get.

I don't think the players are entitled to see the NFL's books. I don't blame them for wanting to see them, but I don't think they deserve to see them, legally. I don't think the owners owe them a look at the books from a business ethics perspective either. I would be open to hearing a good argument as to why they deserve to see them, but the public explanation put forth by the NFLPA isn't a very good one, IMO.

I don't blame either side for playing hardball. That's the nature of negotiations when gigantic money is at stake. They'd be irresponsible not to use every advantage they have. I tend to side with the owners, because money in their pockets helps to make the league what it is, while money in the players pockets buys real estate and cars. From an NFL fan's perspective, I think would be better for the product if the NFL doesn't have to treat players as part owners with short term interests.

[Patler]

I tend to side with the owners, because money in their pockets helps to make the league what it is, while money in the players pockets buys real estate and cars. From an NFL fan's perspective, I think would be better for the product if the NFL doesn't have to treat players as part owners with short term interests.

Well put.

[Pugger]

Didn't the owners say they'd let a third party look at their books and report their findings to the players?

[Lurker64]

Didn't the owners say they'd let a third party look at their books and report their findings to the players?

Various things along those lines have been reported yes. It was unclear, however, the actual terms of these as D. Smith just kept hammering "show us your books" and how everything short of that would be meaningless. I have a suspicion that the real reason that Smith wanted access to the NFL's books is so that he could trot out embarrassing details about rich folks and use them as class war propaganda in the PR battle. It wouldn't matter if 26 NFL teams were actually in the exact position that the NFL said they were, if there were 6 teams that were doing well those are the 6 they would hammer on.

Which I suppose is why the league was never actually receptive to sharing their ledgers.

[Guiness]

Didn't the owners say they'd let a third party look at their books and report their findings to the players?

Hence my comment on 'unabridged books.'

I think they were going to have a 3rd party look at the audited books, but not necessarily see the individual line items.

It wouldn't matter if 26 NFL teams were actually in the exact position that the NFL said they were, if there were 6 teams that were doing well those are the 6 they would hammer on.

And without the individual line items, they could not do what Lurker mentions, which I also suspect is at least part of their strategy.

As mentioned before, there's likely at least one owner out there who has his extended family on the payroll, making a few hundred thousand each, as 'quality control' people.