Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[Fritz]

Wonder if Don Majkowski's been working out in preparation for the NFL season?

Hey, maybe tony Mandarich will sign up and play guard. He can make up for his earlier career or lack of career in Gren Bay. Maybe Bill Schroeder's in good enough shape, too.

Replacement NFL, here we come!

[sharpe1027]

I think the owners might be the lesser of two evils, but owners can sometimes have a short term interest too. There's no requirement that owners put the money back into their teams or that plan for long-term growth of the league. In many cases it happens, but owners might be in it just for their own personal glory and do things that have nothing to do with the league being better (Jerry Jones anyone?). Other owners might have other motives (turning a profit on resale rather than long term stability). Maybe the NFL should become a non-profit organization.

Look at it another way, who creates more value to the league, the owners or the players. Which would have a bigger effect? Replacing all of the current owners or replacing all of the current players?

[get louder at lambeau]

I think the owners might be the lesser of two evils, but owners can sometimes have a short term interest too. There's no requirement that owners put the money back into their teams or that plan for long-term growth of the league. In many cases it happens, but owners might be in it just for their own personal glory and do things that have nothing to do with the league being better (Jerry Jones anyone?).

Jerry Jones just built a gigantic new stadium for the Packers to win a Super Bowl in.

[MJZiggy]

Jerry Jones just built a gigantic new stadium for the Packers to win a Super Bowl in.

Didn't the city of Dallas do that? Or at least pay for a good chunk of it?

[get louder at lambeau]

Didn't the city of Dallas do that? Or at least pay for a good chunk of it?

Mr. Jones financed the $1.2 billion price tag mostly by going to the credit markets, just like every other highly profitable private business is expected to do. He did get $300 million from the city of Arlington, but in an era when taxpayers are expected to pick up most—if not all—of a stadium's cost, this was a *bargain.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385050331125812.html

[NewsBruin]

Well, like I've said from the beginning...

Just kidding, that was a Required Messageboard Statement.

Actually, I still side with the players on the isssue (reducing the pot by $1 billion without specific justification), but I think they've screwed the pooch from here to Miami and back to Minnesota.

I don't like the antitrust lawsuits in theory (how can they sue for rules that were either part of a past CBA or that haven't happened yet?) or in principle (this is going to make the rich players/teams richer and the poor players/teams poorer and less competitive). I don't think the "irreperable harm" standard was met on their side (and the League's done a decent job convincing me that irreperable harm would be done to them were the lockout enjoined). And I think the NFLPA's really painted themselves in a corner by decertifying, because they can't collectively bargain, they can't make players NOT indvidually bargain, and they can't recertify without shooting themselves in the foot in any NLRB matters.

I wish I had thought about this more in retrospect, not because I was for decertification or the antitrust lawsuits, but because I wish I were more against it as strategic maneuvers (like threatening to ask the Ugly Girl to the prom to make the cheerleader go with you; the cheerleader calls your bluff, and now you're honor-bound to slow-dance with Nanny McPhee).

I still side with the players on the CBA issue, but they've lost my respect as a union. I don't have that much love for the owners (sorry you can't agree more on revenue-sharing, Comcast didn't want to put the NFL Network on basic tier, and Jerrah couldn't keep his fool trap shut with DirecTV negotiations), but I think they deservedly have a better bargaining position now if they want to get back to the table.

And not to sound like an evil, uncaring, progressive-liberal-media, commerce-crushing type that everyone on this board repudiates, but I think it would be best if the league committed to hammering out a deal that addressed everyone's desires and wasn't about "sending a message," only because that's going to lead this to happening all over again when the next CBA expires.

Which is what shoud have been the goal all along. I wish each side had a Patler and knew how to use it.

[Bretsky]

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.

ditto; I'd have to admit I've been pro owner, but watching this dude play his game has really turned me off. A wise man once said there was a reason the union elected this guy instead of one of their own former players

[King Friday]

I'm not for either side. I'm for the fans, who just want football and don't really care how much of the multi-billion dollar pie is split between an owner, a player, and a janitor. All a fan knows is that there is PLENTY of money to go around and make everyone filthy rich (well, except for the janitor).

The players have really hurt themselves during this lockout. Smith might be a smart lawyer-type, but he's a PR nightmare in my mind. He also is very disconnected to the players, and it shows. The whole flap over telling the college kids to skip the draft was crazy stupid. Whoever thought that up really doesn't have much common sense. This is between the owners and the CURRENT players, not the college kids getting drafted that don't even have a contract yet.

Ultimately, the owners always hold all the cards. The players have a limited period of earnings potential, and can't afford to waste months and years like the owners can. It is best for the players to be civil and honest...they had reasonable arguments on their side this time, and probably could've gotten a deal that was at least a partial win for them if they hadn't started the name-calling and crazy crap. Now, the momentum is shifting and it is starting to look more likely that the players will wind up on the losing end of this.

[CaliforniaCheez]

The main problem is there are too many misconceptions. Players think deals rachet only one way and they can never go the other way. Deals don't always get better. In bad times their are rollbacks.
Seeing the books? Al Davis doesn't even show his co owners the books!! If you owned 15% of the Raiders you get only what Al says and you have to trust his honesty. The owners will not open them this time but the word will go out to clean up the books because they will likely have to open them in the future.

What the owners did not anticipate is so much of the racial rhetoric coming from the players. When you hear "slave" and "plantation" being thrown around it can simmer into a lot larger problem. Sitting in court for years is a problem for the owners because there is always a crazy judge that can impose and whole new NFL on the public. This lawsuit demanding the elimination of the draft, salary cap, and player limits is serious business if you believe the decertification of the union. The players were stupid to hire a lawyer who never played in the league.

Having labor peace for over 20 years has been great. If it costs a season to keep labor peace for another 20 years I am willing to give up the whole season. I never want to go through another 1982 season again. It is too bad that this of all years did not have a fan fest and cut out a lot of the celebrations.

[swede]

The main problem is there are too many misconceptions. Players think deals rachet only one way and they can never go the other way. Deals don't always get better. In bad times their are rollbacks.
Seeing the books? Al Davis doesn't even show his co owners the books!! If you owned 15% of the Raiders you get only what Al says and you have to trust his honesty. The owners will not open them this time but the word will go out to clean up the books because they will likely have to open them in the future.

What the owners did not anticipate is so much of the racial rhetoric coming from the players. When you hear "slave" and "plantation" being thrown around it can simmer into a lot larger problem. Sitting in court for years is a problem for the owners because there is always a crazy judge that can impose and whole new NFL on the public. This lawsuit demanding the elimination of the draft, salary cap, and player limits is serious business if you believe the decertification of the union. The players were stupid to hire a lawyer who never played in the league.

Having labor peace for over 20 years has been great. If it costs a season to keep labor peace for another 20 years I am willing to give up the whole season. I never want to go through another 1982 season again. It is too bad that this of all years did not have a fan fest and cut out a lot of the celebrations.

Wise wisdom. Great post.

[bobblehead]

What the owners did not anticipate is so much of the racial rhetoric coming from the players. When you hear "slave" and "plantation" being thrown around it can simmer into a lot larger problem. .

Lord Have Mercy....a good judge has stayed the lockout and the slaves remain free. They can NOT be exploited by those evil plantation owners any longer.

AP is dancing in the streets (or around a fire, or whatever former slaves do when they are freed)

[SkinBasket]

And not to sound like an evil, uncaring, progressive-liberal-media, commerce-crushing type that everyone on this board repudiates, but I think it would be best if the league committed to hammering out a deal that addressed everyone's desires and wasn't about "sending a message," only because that's going to lead this to happening all over again when the next CBA expires.

I think that's more what a lot of people here would like to see, but the league, from all reports has been the only party to try to bridge the gap between the players and the owners, making concessions while the players sit and pout, so I doubt the NFL is going to "punish" the players should they gain every upper hand through the courts. The owners still realize the those players provide the best product and the best product makes the most money.

[Tony Oday]

I think that's more what a lot of people here would like to see, but the league, from all reports has been the only party to try to bridge the gap between the players and the owners, making concessions while the players sit and pout, so I doubt the NFL is going to "punish" the players should they gain every upper hand through the courts. The owners still realize the those players provide the best product and the best product makes the most money.

Cap salaries at $500,000 per player per win.

[NewsBruin]

Skin, I want to comment on your "from all reports" statement: Near the end of CBA negotiations, Goodell said the offer might not be made again. That might just be gamesmanship, but get folks like Richardson and Jerrah, and it might not be all olive branches.

The league offered a lot of different things at the CBA deadline, but a good chunk of them were low-cost or money-saving issues: fewer OTA's, shorter camps, less contact, independent drug-suspension appeal. They did start decreasing their drawback amount from $1 billion to something less, but still didn't really address the union's question directly: why they needed the money. I didn't examine the last offer much (because I didn't think it would be taken), but some players questioned the salary-cap staying stagnant for a while and not rising with revenues. (Okay, it came from Chris Kluwe's whiteboard.)

Were I a player rep (being a 34-year old, college-educated white male who follows the health-care industry doggedly), I'd have seriously considered their last offer when they threw in lifetime funded healthcare. I don't think that was a smart move on the league's part, but I'd have taken it.

Crazy as it sounds, a lot of the NFL's success has come from its selfishly socialistic setup, and if the owners or players screw that up, this league is not going to be as successful as it has been.

[Patler]

The league offered a lot of different things at the CBA deadline, but a good chunk of them were low-cost or money-saving issues: fewer OTA's, shorter camps, less contact, independent drug-suspension appeal. They did start decreasing their drawback amount from $1 billion to something less, but still didn't really address the union's question directly: why they needed the money.

I don't dispute your summary at all, but therein lies the real issue. The owners should not have to prove they need the money. Arguably, with the old CBA terminated, its the owners money. Maybe the players should have to prove that THEY need the money, otherwise the owners should get to keep it.

This goes back to what I said has always bothered me with the players position. It presupposes that they are fundamentally entitled to a given % of some defined amount, or that the owners are entitled to only a given profit with everything else going to the players. Neither makes a lot of sense to me. I recognize that the expired CBA tried to establish that type of framework in fairly great detail. But times have changed. New stadiums are "needed" and owners are having to pay bigger and bigger shares. New revenue sources are needed and have been found. Owners need to have greater certainty in their costs to the extent they can so they can better plan capital improvements and business expansions.

I am in favor of scraping the silly calculation of the salary cap being an ever change percentage of poorly defined values. That only leads to confusion and misunderstandings, which lead ultimately distrust.

Sign a CBA with defined salary caps. Fixed dollar amounts known ahead of time for each year that the CBA covers. They did it in the past for minimum salaries, restricted free agent tenders, etc. No reason they can't just specify actual salary caps. Certainty is a good thing.