PDA

View Full Version : Football EXCLUSIVE: Summary of NFL proposal to NFLPA


Von Dumbass
03-11-2011, 06:40 PM
http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/exclusive-summary-of-nfl-proposal-to-nflpa/

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry level compensation system based on the Union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury – the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by:

* Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;
* Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and
* Increasing number of days off for players.

* Increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

Trevo_410
03-11-2011, 06:48 PM
i don't see how the nflpa turned that down...

Mr. Laz
03-11-2011, 06:58 PM
i don't see how the nflpa turned that down...
because they can ... they are pretty dam confident that the courts are going to force the NFL to do whatever the Union wants.

The NFLPA are the victims here ... don't you know that?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 06:58 PM
because they can ... they are pretty dam confident that the courts are going to force the NFL to do whatever the Union wants.

The NFLPA are the victims here ... don't you know that?

Dam=Damn

Please, get it right.

keg in kc
03-11-2011, 07:01 PM
Dam=Damn

Please, get it right.No, he means that they're so confident that it's welled up like a reservoir behind the grand coulee that is their righteous anger at the injustice of the owners.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2011, 07:03 PM
Dam=Damn

Please, get it right.
Please suck on the end of a shotgun and blow your damn head off.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 07:04 PM
Please suck on the end of a shotgun and blow your damn head off.

Sure, anything for you, Laz.

ROFL

Fuckin' tool.

milkman
03-11-2011, 07:10 PM
There's one thing that this summary seems to fail to address, the 1 bil that seems to be the crux of the difference.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:11 PM
I honestly don't know enough about the money side to know if that's actually fair. Will you guys just tell me what to think so I can update my facebook status?

TIA

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 07:17 PM
Please suck on the end of a shotgun and blow your damn head off.ROFL

You dont take jokes well, do you? :)

kstater
03-11-2011, 07:19 PM
There's one thing that this summary seems to fail to address, the 1 bil that seems to be the crux of the difference.

It was the very first thing they put in the summary.

milkman
03-11-2011, 07:20 PM
It was the very first thing they put in the summary.

Reading fail.

:banghead:

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 07:20 PM
It was the very first thing they put in the summary.It says 'more than split'. WTF does that mean?

wazu
03-11-2011, 07:20 PM
I honestly don't know enough about the money side to know if that's actually fair. Will you guys just tell me what to think so I can update my facebook status?

TIA

Owners caved, which resulted in the truth of the players bargaining in bad faith to be shown for what it is. Players are now the bad guys.

kstater
03-11-2011, 07:21 PM
It says 'more than split'. WTF does that mean?

They were apart X number of dollars, they conceded more than half that difference.

milkman
03-11-2011, 07:25 PM
They were apart X number of dollars, they conceded more than half that difference.

Basically, the players are syaing they don't want to give any of the 1 bil back without proof that the owners are unwilling to provide?

That the gist of it?

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 07:25 PM
They were apart X number of dollars, they conceded more than half that difference.Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.

If this IS the actual offer the owners proposed, then the players look silly.

FUCK THIS SHIT.

NFL: I DONT KNOW HOW TO QUIT YOU!

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 07:26 PM
Owners caved, which resulted in the truth of the players bargaining in bad faith to be shown for what it is. Players are now the bad guys.If this is all true, they are, indeed.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2011, 07:27 PM
SBJLizMullen Liz Mullen
by brian_mcintyre
Breaking--NFLPA lawsuit:Union seeking a declaration that NFL salary cap, franchise tag, other restrictions violate the Sherman Antitrust Act

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:32 PM
Owners caved, which resulted in the truth of the players bargaining in bad faith to be shown for what it is. Players are now the bad guys.

To be fair it was the owners who opted out and got a TV deal that was essentially lockout insurance. Doesn't sound like people interested in good faith negotiations. At the very least it seems like they split blame here.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:32 PM
Basically, the players are syaing they don't want to give any of the 1 bil back without proof that the owners are unwilling to provide?

That the gist of it?

Personally I still think that's fair.

wazu
03-11-2011, 07:33 PM
SBJLizMullen Liz Mullen
by brian_mcintyre
Breaking--NFLPA lawsuit:Union seeking a declaration that NFL salary cap, franchise tag, other restrictions violate the Sherman Antitrust Act

Players moving to make salary cap illegal, so basically Brian Waters is doing his best to ensure the Chiefs never compete again.

kstater
03-11-2011, 07:34 PM
Basically, the players are syaing they don't want to give any of the 1 bil back without proof that the owners are unwilling to provide?

That the gist of it?

Or the players never wanted to do anything but go to court. Supposedly the owners offered the last 5 years statements but that wasn't enough.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Players moving to make salary cap illegal, so basically Brian Waters is doing his best to ensure the Chiefs never compete again.

Ooh good point. I'm back with the owners.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Or the players never wanted to do anything but go to court. Supposedly the owners offered the last 5 years statements but that wasn't enough.

Statements for the league as a whole, not team by team. That's a pretty important distinction.

alnorth
03-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Until the owners agree to open their books and show the players all their financial data, I do not care about this attempt at PR. The owners are asking the players to give up some money. If the owners need it, fine, show them why. It is not reasonable for the players to take their word for it.

milkman
03-11-2011, 07:36 PM
Personally I still think that's fair.

I would agree.

But I think there's a level of mistrust that ownership brought on themselves from the players because of the TV contracts that you mention in your previous post.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:39 PM
I would agree.

But I think there's a level of mistrust that ownership brought on themselves from the players because of the TV contracts that you mention in your previous post.

Wait....I was saying I agree that the owners should open their books. If there's a good reason for them not to, I haven't heard it. I agree with you on the owners making themselves look untrustworthy.

Spott
03-11-2011, 07:41 PM
If they let college football be played on Sundays during the lockout, I wouldn't really miss it.

DA_T_84
03-11-2011, 07:43 PM
Are these accurate cliffs?

- The owners take has been Z, The PA take has been Y.
- Then the owners said in order for their to be a new agreement, Z must be larger, and Y must be smaller.
- The PA said, "If you are going to make Z larger, and Y smaller, please give us one logical reason why."
- The owners said, "We don't have to, that's just our position."
- Today, the players said, "If you don't give us a financial audit of your last 10 years, so we can understand why, we are not going to budge an inch on the issue of making Z larger and Y smaller."
- The owners responded by conceding most every other point in the disagreement, and said, "Look, we did want Z to grow by this much, and Y to shrink by this much. But Now, we only want Z to grow by a little less, and Y to shrink by a little less."
- The PA responded by saying "Nope. We arent budging an inch. You wont show us the financial info, then we aren't going to stretch these negotiations out anymore."

Then the PA decertified in order to take it to the courts to decide, where the numbers will be subpoenaed and they will have a lot more leverage.

It was about taking more control, and to not be at the mercy of the owners whims. The PA wants a business partnership rather than an employer/employee relationship with the NFL.


correct?

milkman
03-11-2011, 07:44 PM
Wait....I was saying I agree that the owners should open their books. If there's a good reason for them not to, I haven't heard it. I agree with you on the owners making themselves look untrustworthy.

I'm saying it's that lack of trust that lead to teh players turning down this proposal.

wazu
03-11-2011, 07:44 PM
Wait....I was saying I agree that the owners should open their books. If there's a good reason for them not to, I haven't heard it. I agree with you on the owners making themselves look untrustworthy.

Here's a good reason not to: they don't have to. Players are employees. So they gave the employees most of what they demanded, including getting pay levels up to what they want in four years. Players have exposed themselves as litigious, greedy, assholes, and I hope they lose big.

luv
03-11-2011, 07:44 PM
If they let college football be played on Sundays during the lockout, I wouldn't really miss it.

I have to say I agree. AS long as I have meaningful football to watch, I'll be happy. It would just be really weird not going to games.

alnorth
03-11-2011, 07:45 PM
correct?

more or less, yeah. I am normally against labor unions in almost everything, but the owners are not being reasonable.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:46 PM
Are these accurate cliffs?

- The owners take has been Z, The PA take has been Y.
- Then the owners said in order for their to be a new agreement, Z must be larger, and Y must be smaller.
- The PA said, "If you are going to make Z larger, and Y smaller, please give us one logical reason why."
- The owners said, "We don't have to, that's just our position."
- Today, the players said, "If you don't give us a financial audit of your last 10 years, so we can understand why, we are not going to budge an inch on the issue of making Z larger and Y smaller."
- The owners responded by conceding most every other point in the disagreement, and said, "Look, we did want Z to grow by this much, and Y to shrink by this much. But Now, we only want Z to grow by a little less, and Y to shrink by a little less."
- The PA responded by saying "Nope. We arent budging an inch. You wont show us the financial info, then we aren't going to stretch these negotiations out anymore."

Then the PA decertified in order to take it to the courts to decide, where the numbers will be subpoenaed and they will have a lot more leverage.

It was about taking more control, and to not be at the mercy of the owners whims. The PA wants a business partnership rather than an employer/employee relationship with the NFL.


correct?

That's what I get from it. The problem I have is the players disputing the salary cap. (Not that we have been anywhere close to it in years.)

-King-
03-11-2011, 07:46 PM
If they let college football be played on Sundays during the lockout, I wouldn't really miss it.

I will. The talent across college football is nowhere NEAR close to the talent across the NFL. And they still don't have a playoff so I couldn't really give two fuck about it and it's championships.

alnorth
03-11-2011, 07:48 PM
So they gave the employees most of what they demanded, including getting pay levels up to what they want in four years.

This is not correct. The NFL is insisting that the players take a pay cut (ie, take less than what they are currently due to receive in the future under the old contract), the players asked the owners to prove they need it, and the owners basically said "no, you'll take the cut because we said so".

Until the owners share their financial information with the union, I'm with the players.

DA_T_84
03-11-2011, 07:48 PM
Are these accurate cliffs?

- The owners take has been Z, The PA take has been Y.
- Then the owners said in order for their to be a new agreement, Z must be larger, and Y must be smaller.
- The PA said, "If you are going to make Z larger, and Y smaller, please give us one logical reason why."
- The owners said, "We don't have to, that's just our position."
- Today, the players said, "If you don't give us a financial audit of your last 10 years, so we can understand why, we are not going to budge an inch on the issue of making Z larger and Y smaller."
- The owners responded by conceding most every other point in the disagreement, and said, "Look, we did want Z to grow by this much, and Y to shrink by this much. But Now, we only want Z to grow by a little less, and Y to shrink by a little less."
- The PA responded by saying "Nope. We arent budging an inch. You wont show us the financial info, then we aren't going to stretch these negotiations out anymore."

Then the PA decertified in order to take it to the courts to decide, where the numbers will be subpoenaed and they will have a lot more leverage.

It was about taking more control, and to not be at the mercy of the owners whims. The PA wants a business partnership rather than an employer/employee relationship with the NFL.


correct?

more or less, yeah. I am normally against labor unions in almost everything, but the owners are not being reasonable.

I failed to mention in my first post, that the owners decided to "Opt Out" of the current agreement, because they wanted Z to be higher, and Y to be lower, which brought this whole thing about.

So now the owners gambled and lost, by thinking that there's no way the PA would take this drastic of an action.

And now that they have taken this action, the PA is trying to win back, or at the bottom line, challenge other points of contention (i/e: salary cap, etc..)

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:49 PM
Here's a good reason not to: they don't have to. Players are employees. So they gave the employees most of what they demanded, including getting pay levels up to what they want in four years. Players have exposed themselves as litigious, greedy, assholes, and I hope they lose big.

I don't know that I consider players and owners a typical employee/employer relationship. Why should the players fold and not the owners? Is there a good reason to keep the financial data secret that DOESN'T include dishonesty?

milkman
03-11-2011, 07:50 PM
Here's a good reason not to: they don't have to. Players are employees. So they gave the employees most of what they demanded, including getting pay levels up to what they want in four years. Players have exposed themselves as litigious, greedy, assholes, and I hope they lose big.

I've listened to legal expert interviews numerous times over the last two weeks, and according to them, there's almost zero chance that players lose in litigation, which I suspect fueled the league to give so much in negotiations in the last week.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:51 PM
I've listened to legal expert interviews numerous times over the last two weeks, and according to them, there's almost zero chance that players lose in litigation, which I suspect fueled the league to give so much in negotiations in the last week.

And yet not enough to give in to their loudest demand. :hmmm:

Brianfo
03-11-2011, 07:53 PM
Here's a good reason not to: they don't have to. Players are employees. So they gave the employees most of what they demanded, including getting pay levels up to what they want in four years. Players have exposed themselves as litigious, greedy, assholes, and I hope they lose big.

This. Eleven Billionty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wazu
03-11-2011, 07:53 PM
I don't know that I consider players and owners a typical employee/employer relationship. Why should the players fold and not the owners? Is there a good reason to keep the financial data secret that DOESN'T include dishonesty?

It may not be typical, but in the end that's what it is. And not all privacy/secrecy is dishonest. Could they be hiding something? Maybe. But in my opinion it's within their right to hide.

Nightfyre
03-11-2011, 07:55 PM
I don't know that I consider players and owners a typical employee/employer relationship. Why should the players fold and not the owners? Is there a good reason to keep the financial data secret that DOESN'T include dishonesty?

How about a right to keep your business affairs private?

DA_T_84
03-11-2011, 07:58 PM
How about a right to keep your business affairs private?

Which is fine and well, until you start taking money out of my pocket.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 07:58 PM
It may not be typical, but in the end that's what it is. And not all privacy/secrecy is dishonest. Could they be hiding something? Maybe. But in my opinion it's within their right to hide.

Maybe so, but they knew the leverage the players have. If they had no intention of opening their books, why did they think the players would take a pay cut just because. All we're hearing about is how much more dangerous playing pro football is than we ever thought. Did they really think in light of that the players would be in the mood for a give back?

**conspiracy theory** Did they want to lock the players into a disadvantageous CBA before more truths were revealed about the long term effects????

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:01 PM
Maybe so, but they knew the leverage the players have. If they had no intention of opening their books, why did they think the players would take a pay cut just because. All we're hearing about is how much more dangerous playing pro football is than we ever thought. Did they really think in light of that the players would be in the mood for a give back?

**conspiracy theory** Did they want to lock the players into a disadvantageous CBA before more truths were revealed about the long term effects????

Players are not taking a pay cut. And in fact by 2015 would be making exactly what they asked for, which equates to about a $20 million raise every year for the next four years.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:03 PM
How about a right to keep your business affairs private?

Let's say you and your coworkers are the only people in the world that can perform your job at the level at which you do. One day your boss comes in and says he's cutting your pay. He claims he doesn't have the money to pay you. You find this hard to believe because of how well your business doing and how quickly it's been growing, but you enter into negotiations. You simply ask for proof that he is having hard financial times, but he refuses. "Trust me," he says. You know you have leverage because of how much better you are at your job than anyone else. You're telling me you take the pay cut? Why??

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:04 PM
Players are not taking a pay cut. And in fact by 2015 would be making exactly what they asked for, which equates to about a $20 million raise every year for the next four years.

By pay cut I mean less than what was laid out in the original CBA.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 08:04 PM
Players are not taking a pay cut. And in fact by 2015 would be making exactly what they asked for, which equates to about a $20 million raise every year for the next four years.

Yes, players are taking a pay cut, in the aggregate. It's just a cut against earnings in future contracts rather than current contracts.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:05 PM
i don't see how the nflpa turned that down...

What about the extra $420 million the owners wanted to skim off the top by not splitting that second billion?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 08:06 PM
How about a right to keep your business affairs private?

Major League Baseball, meantime, took a public relations hit when financial information about several of its teams was released last year. In May, divorce court records showed that two sons of Dodgers owner Frank McCourt were on the payroll for a combined $600,000, though one was reportedly enrolled at Stanford business school and the other worked for Goldman Sachs in New York.

-----------------------

How do you think the NFL players would feel about something like this, especially after they've been asked to take $1 billion additional dollars off the top, giving the owners a $2 billion dollar exemption, before earnings are allocated?

The NFL has a salary cap, Franchise tag, etc. All of that is supposedly predicated on "Good Faith". Well, about they prove it?

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:06 PM
By pay cut I mean less than what was laid out in the original CBA.

And almost exactly what the players asked for in the new collective bargaining.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:07 PM
And almost exactly what the players asked for in the new collective bargaining.

I don't know the actual numbers off-hand. How close is "almost exactly"?

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:08 PM
I don't know the actual numbers off-hand. How close is "almost exactly"?

Well, not quite what they wanted over the next three years, but by year four, "exactly". And more money across the board every year than what they have been making.

alnorth
03-11-2011, 08:09 PM
It may not be typical, but in the end that's what it is. And not all privacy/secrecy is dishonest. Could they be hiding something? Maybe. But in my opinion it's within their right to hide.

Fine, if the NFL doesnt want to be open and deal with the player's union with clean hands, then its also within the player's rights to decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:09 PM
And almost exactly what the players asked for in the new collective bargaining.

No, the players wanted things to essentially stay "as is"

The owners want a rookie wage scale, the second billion split-free, 18 games, and total financial opacity.

The NFL owners don't have trade secrets, sorry. There's no reason why they shouldn't open up their books.

The owners got greedy, they wanted to bend the players over, and now they are going to get fucked in the ass because DeMaurice Smith isn't a dumb motherfucker like Gene Upshaw.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:11 PM
Well, not quite what they wanted over the next three years, but by year four, "exactly". And more money across the board every year than what they have been making.

And this proposal says nothing of the salary floor. You could make a cap of $900 billion per team if you really wanted.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:11 PM
Well, not quite what they wanted over the next three years, but by year four, "exactly".

All I'm saying is that if it was as insignificant as you are portraying it, why would the owners be stuck on it as well? You can argue it's their right to pay what they will, but it's also the right of a union to refuse to backtrack on a contract. That is the number one thing employees expect of their union. Any give backs are a failure.

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:12 PM
The owners got greedy, they wanted to bend the players over, and now they are going to get fucked in the ass because DeMaurice Smith isn't a dumb motherfucker like Gene Upshaw.

That is such bullshit. Just rewind and lets assume Upshaw had been a "smart" motherfucker in your eyes and screwed over the NFL with no salary cap. Would the NFL be what it is today? Or would it be as shitty as MLB?

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:13 PM
That is such bullshit. Just rewind and lets assume Upshaw had been a "smart" motherfucker in your eyes and screwed over the NFL with no salary cap. Would the NFL be what it is today? Or would it be as shitty as MLB?

Honest question. How many teams are up against the salary cap as it is? Isn't profit sharing the much bigger question and doesn't the NFL do that pretty well? (as of right now)

alnorth
03-11-2011, 08:14 PM
Well, not quite what they wanted over the next three years, but by year four, "exactly". And more money across the board every year than what they have been making.

Trying to understand what you mean. The only way this makes sense is if you are saying that the NFL profits will grow until by year four there's enough new profit to replace what they are giving up to the owners by not splitting the 2nd billion

...except thats still a cut because they are still not splitting the 2nd billion. Whatever the players get x years from now, is less than what they would get x years from now in the current deal.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:15 PM
That is such bullshit. Just rewind and lets assume Upshaw had been a "smart" motherfucker in your eyes and screwed over the NFL with no salary cap. Would the NFL be what it is today? Or would it be as shitty as MLB?

Yeah, the MLB is truly a shitty product. No teams have any chance to compete. The NFL is only popular because of the salary cap, and has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of the game.

That's stupid as fucking hell.

Let's extend your logic. Wouldn't the NBA be the most popular league, since it also has the hardest cap?

Ironically, that's also the sport where's there is the least competitive balance.

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:16 PM
Honest question. How many teams are up against the salary cap as it is? Isn't profit sharing the much bigger question and doesn't the NFL do that pretty well? (as of right now)

Seriously? You don't think Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones will have payrolls three times that of the Chiefs within two years if there is no salary cap? It's this simple: if the salary cap goes away, as players are now going to fight in court to do, the Chiefs will be the new Royals.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:17 PM
Seriously? You don't think Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones will have payrolls three times that of the Chiefs within two years if there is no salary cap? It's this simple: if the salary cap goes away, as players are now going to fight in court to do, the Chiefs will be the new Royals.

They already do, dumb shit, and they are both picking in the top 10.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:18 PM
Chiefs: $84.5 million.
Redskins: $178.2 million.
Cowboys: $166.5 million.


There's your spending from last year.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:18 PM
Seriously? You don't think Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones will have payrolls three times that of the Chiefs within two years if there is no salary cap? It's this simple: if the salary cap goes away, as players are now going to fight in court to do, the Chiefs will be the new Royals.

But baseball works differently than football. Snyder consistently outspends teams and the Redskins consistently suck ass. I don't think you can but championships in the NFL like you can in MLB. Maybe I'm wrong.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 08:19 PM
Or would it be as shitty as MLB?

:deevee:

Major League Baseball is only "shitty' because they don't have revenue sharing.

A salary cap, especially in baseball, is unnecessary. Hell, I think it's unnecessary in the NFL.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:20 PM
Chiefs: $84.5 million.
Redskins: $178.2 million.
Cowboys: $166.5 million.


There's your spending from last year.

That's what I thought. I know you can't count on owners being as dumb as those two (especially Snyder) but I think there might be a correlation between buying up expensive free agents and poor ownership.

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:22 PM
Chiefs: $84.5 million.
Redskins: $178.2 million.
Cowboys: $166.5 million.


There's your spending from last year.

Last year was uncapped. Let's look at 2009:

Chiefs: $81.8 million
Redskins: $99.9 million
Cowboys: $90.3 million

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:22 PM
# of teams that have appeared in the WS since 2000:

NYY, NYY, Az, SF, LAA, Fla, St.L, Hou, CHW, Det, Bos, Col, TB, Phi, Tex

15/30

# teams that have appeared in the SB since 200:

Bal, NYG, NE, St. L, TB, Oak, Car, Phi, Pit, Sea, Chi, Ind, Az, No, GB

15/32

You just can't compete in baseball.

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:23 PM
Oh, but thanks for proving my point.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 08:24 PM
Last year was uncapped. Let's look at 2009:

Chiefs: $81.8 million
Redskins: $99.9 million
Cowboys: $90.3 million

The Redskins and Cowboys didn't rush out and sign any high dollar free-agents in 2010, so those numbers would have escalated regardless.

Neither team had to do any "cap voodoo" in terms of re-negotiating contracts, giving players more upfront money, etc. to get under the cap.

A salary cap in the NFL is unnecessary because all revenue is shared. Sure, an owner might pull some of his money from another venture and throw it in the pool in order to lure a prized free agent from time to time, but history shows us that it's usually of little consequence.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 08:25 PM
Oh, but thanks for proving my point.

Your "point" has zero merit

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:25 PM
Oh, but thanks for proving my point.

They may have spent a lot more, but it doesn't prove that spending more yields better results.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 08:26 PM
They may have spent a lot more, but it doesn't prove that spending more yields better results.

They didn't "spend more". The money would have been spent regardless but it would have been "managed" to appear that they were under the cap.

The cap is useless.

wazu
03-11-2011, 08:27 PM
They may have spent a lot more, but it doesn't prove that spending more yields better results.

If the argument being made is that spending three times as much cash won't yield better results on a consistent basis, then that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Does it guarantee success? Of course not. But does it ensure that there is no such thing as a level playing field? Absolutely.

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:28 PM
They didn't "spend more". The money would have been spent regardless but it would have been "managed" to appear that they were under the cap.

The cap is useless.

I meant "spent more" than the Chiefs. I am in general a fan of the cap but I don't think it will greatly affect the competitiveness of the league.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:28 PM
Last year was uncapped. Let's look at 2009:

Chiefs: $81.8 million
Redskins: $99.9 million
Cowboys: $90.3 million

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team

Player expenses for 2009

Dallas: $165 mil according to Forbes for 2009.
Washington: $139 mil according to Forbes for 2009
KC: $101

kysirsoze
03-11-2011, 08:30 PM
If the argument being made is that spending three times as much cash won't yield better results on a consistent basis, then that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Does it guarantee success? Of course not. But does it ensure that there is no such thing as a level playing field? Absolutely.

I don't think there are enough owners out there that are willing to dump good money after bad in order to win. Most seem pretty set on their teams being profitable, for better or worse.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 08:32 PM
If the argument being made is that spending three times as much cash won't yield better results on a consistent basis, then that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Does it guarantee success? Of course not. But does it ensure that there is no such thing as a level playing field? Absolutely.

Your argument holds no weight because there are only a limited amount of funds. The NFL shares all revenue sources so it's highly unlikely that even the wealthiest of owners is going to consistently pay money out of his pocket far beyond his revenue allows.

Put it this way: If revenue sharing dictates that I have $140 million dollars to spend each year on 53 players (not including the 8 PS guys), how can I justify paying an additional $20-30 million more than the rest of the league if I don't have the operating revenue to do so?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:33 PM
Oh, but thanks for proving my point.

You must be the stupidest person alive if you think that showing that there is no difference in the ability of the team to play for a championship in baseball vs. football somehow proves your point that the NFL has better competitive balance.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 08:35 PM
When the Dallas Cowboys get a cable network like YES or NESN, then you can start bitching about how it affects the ability of the Chiefs to compete.

Of course, even under the current system, it was completely obvious that there were only a few teams who would consistently splurge on FA's, and none of them were ever the Chiefs.

Jesus Christ, a team owned by a fucking city just won the Super Bowl.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 08:52 PM
And this proposal says nothing of the salary floor. You could make a cap of $900 billion per team if you really wanted.

Isnt that what number ten is about?
Posted via Mobile Device

bevischief
03-11-2011, 08:59 PM
If they let college football be played on Sundays during the lockout, I wouldn't really miss it.

Split the games between both Saturdays and Sundays I would be very happy and not notice too much.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 09:00 PM
Isnt that what number ten is about?
Posted via Mobile Device

Notice how they called it a cash minimum. That's an important distinction.

bevischief
03-11-2011, 09:02 PM
Let's say you and your coworkers are the only people in the world that can perform your job at the level at which you do. One day your boss comes in and says he's cutting your pay. He claims he doesn't have the money to pay you. You find this hard to believe because of how well your business doing and how quickly it's been growing, but you enter into negotiations. You simply ask for proof that he is having hard financial times, but he refuses. "Trust me," he says. You know you have leverage because of how much better you are at your job than anyone else. You're telling me you take the pay cut? Why??

you must work for ATT...

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 09:08 PM
Notice how they called it a cash minimum. That's an important distinction.

Honest question.

Why? What is the difference?
Posted via Mobile Device

Spott
03-11-2011, 09:08 PM
you must work for ATT...

13 billion a year in profit isn't enough to prevent those dirty bastards from laying off thousands of employees because of a "bad economy".

BigRedChief
03-11-2011, 09:08 PM
I don't give chit. If they can't figure out a reasonable way to split 9 billion $ then screw them. They can bitch and moan. call each other names etc

But, they miss just one frikkin game I hope hell rains down on all of their Greedy ass's.

Nightfyre
03-11-2011, 09:12 PM
Which is fine and well, until you start taking money out of my pocket.

Look:
If a business goes to their supplier and says "I can't operate unless you cut your price," the supplier sure as shit isn't going to ask em to prove it. They will either accept it if they can afford to, or tell them they can't accomodate their request if they can't.

bevischief
03-11-2011, 09:15 PM
This sounds like a good deal to me, after reading this I side at this point with owners. If I was the players I would counter with a more for health care and more money for the retired players to get a deal done otherwise they are just greedy and not looking out for the game and fans.

el borracho
03-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Until the owners agree to open their books and show the players all their financial data, I do not care about this attempt at PR. The owners are asking the players to give up some money. If the owners need it, fine, show them why. It is not reasonable for the players to take their word for it.

Do the players need more money? Maybe the players should prove their need.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 09:18 PM
Look:
If a business goes to their supplier and says "I can't operate unless you cut your price," the supplier sure as shit isn't going to ask em to prove it. They will either accept it if they can afford to, or tell them they can't accomodate their request if they can't.

This isn't a widgets purchase.

BigRedChief
03-11-2011, 09:18 PM
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://img.ed4.net/nfl/2011/predev/cops_56032_0102/1/img/cops1.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=508><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: Endzone Sans Light, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #231f20; FONT-SIZE: 12px">
Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.



<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: Endzone Sans Light, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #231f20; FONT-SIZE: 12px">Yours,
Roger Goodell</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 09:18 PM
Do the players need more money? Maybe the players should prove their need.

The players weren't asking for more money. They were fine with the CBA that was already in place.

Nightfyre
03-11-2011, 09:20 PM
This isn't a widgets purchase.

It really is.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 09:22 PM
It really is.

It's really not even close to a widgets purchase. If you're looking at it like a widgets purchase, you're going to get everything just about 100% wrong trying to apply it to the current situation, as you did in your earlier post.

alnorth
03-11-2011, 09:29 PM
This sounds like a good deal to me, after reading this I side at this point with owners. If I was the players I would counter with a more for health care and more money for the retired players to get a deal done otherwise they are just greedy and not looking out for the game and fans.

This deal is a dressed-up shower of minor points in an attempt to disguise the fact that the owners are asking the players to give up hundreds of millions of dollars. If the owners need it then fine, but if they aren't even willing to open their books to the union, just as the NBA and MLB does, then screw the owners.

alnorth
03-11-2011, 09:30 PM
Do the players need more money? Maybe the players should prove their need.

They didn't ask for more money.

milkman
03-11-2011, 09:34 PM
You must be the stupidest person alive if you think that showing that there is no difference in the ability of the team to play for a championship in baseball vs. football somehow proves your point that the NFL has better competitive balance.

The problem with baseball isn't competitive balance.

The best run organizations, like the Twins, can compete.
But because they can't spend money like the larger markets, they constantly have to reload from the minor league system.

But if you don't have good management in place in the smaller markets, like the Royals and Pirates, then you can't compete.

Meanwhile teams like the Yankees and Red Sox that spend ridiculous money compete yearly.

Because of profit sharing, the issues in the NFL won't be the same as MLB.

Nightfyre
03-11-2011, 09:39 PM
It's really not even close to a widgets purchase. If you're looking at it like a widgets purchase, you're going to get everything just about 100% wrong trying to apply it to the current situation, as you did in your earlier post.

the NFL can get players willing to play for less. It's a lot more similar than you'd think at a glance.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 09:40 PM
The problem with baseball isn't competitive balance.

The best run organizations, like the Twins, can compete.
But because they can't spend money like the larger markets, they constantly have to reload from the minor league system.

But if you don't have good management in place in the smaller markets, like the Royals and Pirates, then you can't compete.

Meanwhile teams like the Yankees and Red Sox that spend ridiculous money compete yearly.

Because of profit sharing, the issues in the NFL won't be the same as MLB.

There already is a large luxury tax that doesn't stop, but does penalize teams for spending egregiously.

What most people don't realize is that it is almost impossible to have a team with a bunch of high priced free agents and a top level farm system, because every time you sign a top tier FA, you will forfeit your first round draft pick for that year unless you finished in the bottom half of the league.

On top of that, the team that loses the player gets a "sandwich" pick in between the first and the second round.

Compound that with the late age at which baseball players reach free agency and the relative lack of return on investment that free agent players provide, and it can be a very competitive system for a team that hires competent management and cares about winning.

However, if you only care about a profit, you can have the Pittsburgh Pirates.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 09:42 PM
If the owners were hurting as bad as they claimed they are, they'd open up their books for the union to see how they were hemorrhaging money. Now, if they didn't want to do this, I could understand if they had a trade secret or some kind of intellectual property. They don't.

Opening up their financials isn't going to release the talent from Tom Brady for the Patriots.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 09:44 PM
the NFL can get players willing to play for less. It's a lot more similar than you'd think at a glance.

Yes, the scabs were just as good as the regular players. :thumb:

Nightfyre
03-11-2011, 09:46 PM
Yes, the scabs were just as good as the regular players. :thumb:

Lesser quality widgets would make for a lesser quality product. The product would still exist, however.

bevischief
03-11-2011, 09:51 PM
If there is no football this year it will be a long time before for I will pay for a game ticket or anything new Chiefs related. I will not watch "The Replacements" take the field. I have enough channels that show college football games on Sunday to make up for it.

bevischief
03-11-2011, 09:52 PM
Because of Herm I really started to watch college football a lot...

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 09:56 PM
If the owners were hurting as bad as they claimed they are, they'd open up their books for the union to see how they were hemorrhaging money. Now, if they didn't want to do this, I could understand if they had a trade secret or some kind of intellectual property. They don't.

Opening up their financials isn't going to release the talent from Tom Brady for the Patriots.

THIS

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 09:57 PM
If the owners were hurting as bad as they claimed they are, they'd open up their books for the union to see how they were hemorrhaging money. Now, if they didn't want to do this, I could understand if they had a trade secret or some kind of intellectual property. They don't.

Opening up their financials isn't going to release the talent from Tom Brady for the Patriots.

That is a naive and simplistic view and you know it. Once you give a concession like "open books" you can't take it back... There are dozens of possible reasons why the owners don't want to open their books.. not the LEAST of which is that they have absolutely ZERO obligation to. As I said before, if this goes to court, I sincerely hope every pro-union player is out of work for life. They have no RIGHT to see the books... PERIOD. Bullying the owners with the courts is despicable.


The owners gave a fair offer and the players feel they "deserve" to see the books so they can squeeze the owners for as much as they can... well the REAL WORLD doesn't work that way... and they can fuck off for trying to deceive the public that they deserve it.

Let's look at it this way... if I go for a job interview and we are at the salary negotiation phase (basically what is happening right now).. at what point do I get to DEMAND to see the employer's books so that I can squeeze out a better deal? AND don't give me the whole anti-trust BS... this is player greed, plain and simple. I have no problem with being greedy and wanting the best deal... but you don't get to set your own rules(open books) just because you think it will help you get more money.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:00 PM
They didn't ask for more money.

It isn't players, in general; it's that we need a distinction between "proven and contributing" veterans, and rookies and youngsters who MAY have promise....but may also NEVER deliver.

A graduated first contract, with rewards based on incentives and achievements is necessary to level the playing field, and to discourage players from signing contracts that "set" them for life, and yet demand little in return from the players.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:01 PM
The amount of wrongheaded socialist thinking in this thread is disconcerting...

If the owners are making $1 or $1000000000000 it's none of MY business nor the players business ... the player's can do what the rest of us do... negotiate in good faith and hope we haven't grossly misjudged what is fair. No one has the right to change that dynamic.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:02 PM
That is a naive and simplistic view and you know it. Once you give a concession like "open books" you can't take it back... There are dozens of possible reasons why the owners don't want to open their books.. not the LEAST of which is that they have absolutely ZERO obligation to. As I said before, if this goes to court, I sincerely hope every pro-union player is out of work for life. They have no RIGHT to see the books... PERIOD. Bullying the owners with the courts is despicable.


The owners gave a fair offer and the players feel they "deserve" to see the books so they can squeeze the owners for as much as they can... well the REAL WORLD doesn't work that way... and they can **** off for trying to deceive the public that they deserve it.

Let's look at it this way... if I go for a job interview and we are at the salary negotiation phase (basically what is happening right now).. at what point do I get to DEMAND to see the employer's books so that I can squeeze out a better deal? AND don't give me the whole anti-trust BS... this is player greed, plain and simple. I have no problem with being greedy and wanting the best deal... but you don't get to set your own rules(open books) just because you think it will help you get more money.

It's billionaires versus millionaires. I'll side with the little guys, everytime...as long as there are incentives and accountability for the little guys to deliver on what they are being paid to do.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:06 PM
It's billionaires versus millionaires. I'll side with the little guys, everytime...as long as there are incentives and accountability for the little guys to deliver on what they are being paid to do.

Gotcha.. so if you owned a business and you hired me.. and we were negotiating my salary... you'd have NO PROBLEM with me getting a court order to see what your highest possible offer would be?

Jesus, unless you truly are a socialist.. this kind of thinking is ridiculous.

milkman
03-11-2011, 10:13 PM
Lesser quality widgets would make for a lesser quality product. The product would still exist, however.

Only mental midgets would pay full price for lesser quality widgets.

milkman
03-11-2011, 10:17 PM
Gotcha.. so if you owned a business and you hired me.. and we were negotiating my salary... you'd have NO PROBLEM with me getting a court order to see what your highest possible offer would be?

Jesus, unless you truly are a socialist.. this kind of thinking is ridiculous.

You already work for the company.

You aren't interviewing for the job.

Your salary is based on profits.

Your boss tells you he's losing money, even though every sign says he's raking it in, and he tells you he needs to reduce your share.

You aren't going to ask for proof?

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:28 PM
You already work for the company.

You aren't interviewing for the job.

Your salary is based on profits.

Your boss tells you he's losing money, even though every sign says he's raking it in, and he tells you he needs to reduce your share.

You aren't going to ask for proof?


I may ASK .. I certainly don't have a RIGHT to demand it.

they are NEGOTIATING a new CBA.. what do you propose instead? How in HELL is it fair to the owners to force their hand in negotiations?

If you want to NATIONALIZE football (like it appears a few here do), then so be it.. but as it stands it is still a business... and FORCING the owners to open their books is a very very bad precedent.

Also.. to address the ridiculous argument that owners don't take risks .. tell that to Lamar Hunt in 1960 ... yes things worked out for his family but what about the original owners of the USFL teams... only one of whom turned a profit. At some point these people or their families took a HUGE financial risk. But I guess it's time to punish them for their good fortune.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:30 PM
The amount of wrongheaded socialist thinking in this thread is disconcerting...

If the owners are making $1 or $1000000000000 it's none of MY business nor the players business ... the player's can do what the rest of us do... negotiate in good faith and hope we haven't grossly misjudged what is fair. No one has the right to change that dynamic.

Yeah, I'm a socialist.

:rolleyes:

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:32 PM
I may ASK .. I certainly don't have a RIGHT to demand it.

And the result is that you no longer have a business, a business model, $9 billion per year in revenues or a pot to piss in.

How's that?

I'll literally take my ball and go home.

milkman
03-11-2011, 10:33 PM
I may ASK .. I certainly don't have a RIGHT to demand it.

If you want to NATIONALIZE football (like it appears a few here do), then so be it.. but as it stands it is still a business... and FORCING the owners to open their books is a very very bad precedent.

Also.. to address the ridiculous argument that owners don't take risks .. tell that to Lamar Hunt in 1960 ... yes things worked out for his family but what about the original owners of the USFL teams... only one of whom turned a profit. At some point these people or their families took a HUGE financial risk. But I guess it's time to punish them for their good fortune.

You may not have the right to demand it, but if he doesn't somehow prove to you that he is losing money, are you not going to begin to look for another job?

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:33 PM
Yeah, I'm a socialist.

:rolleyes:

I never claimed anyone here IS a socialist.. I just said that many are THINKING and rationalizing like socialists... FORCING the owners to open their books is just plain dumb.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 10:35 PM
You may not have the right to demand it, but if he doesn't somehow prove to you that he is losing money, are you not going to begin to look for another job?

Yep and the players have every right to explore that option.

If you were in that spot would you sue?
Posted via Mobile Device

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:36 PM
You may not have the right to demand it, but if he doesn't somehow prove to you that he is losing money, are you not going to begin to look for another job?

It depends, if the offer I get is more than fair... then NO not a chance.. BUT if I feel that it isn't fair for my services and there is no other company that I can do the same job for... I better start looking into a new line of work. Period.

I don't begrudge the players the right to negotiate and ask for whatever they can get... but taking it to court is despicable.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:38 PM
Gotcha.. so if you owned a business and you hired me.. and we were negotiating my salary... you'd have NO PROBLEM with me getting a court order to see what your highest possible offer would be?

Jesus, unless you truly are a socialist.. this kind of thinking is ridiculous.

Except the NFL is a monopoly. Monopolies, if they wish to proceed, need to open their books.

Thanks for that, Teddy. You da man....

:hmmm:

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:39 PM
And the result is that you no longer have a business, a business model, $9 billion per year in revenues or a pot to piss in.

How's that?

I'll literally take my ball and go home.

HUH? That made no sense... are you claiming that without the players the league has no product? Sure, well then the owners should just give them all the profits!

It's a negotiation... both sides try to get the best deal... but it's crap to take it to court because you don't KNOW what the best deal is.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:39 PM
FORCING the owners to open their books is just plain dumb.

No, it's not.

If our relationship is dependent on one another to exist, I think it's only fair that both of us are compensated fairly.

If you need me, yet I'm only making a fraction of what you're earning, I'll ask for more.

If you deny me more income and I can't earn that income elsewhere, I'll sue you for more income.

The bottom line is that you can't exist without me. Period.

Dave Lane
03-11-2011, 10:40 PM
more or less, yeah. I am normally against labor unions in almost everything, but the owners are not being reasonable.

Well I'm generally pretty anti union on most issues but I've been on their side on this because the owners don't appear to be negotiating in good faith.

That being said IF everything in the opening post is completely true without other conditions, I think the players should jump all over that deal. Its very fair.

Now I'd like to hear the players side of the IF.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:40 PM
Except the NFL is a monopoly. Monopolies, if they wish to proceed, need to open their books.

Thanks for that, Teddy. You da man....

:hmmm:

WTF???? Exactly WHAT country do you live in??? That is NOT the law in any way shape or form.

milkman
03-11-2011, 10:42 PM
Yep and the players have every right to explore that option.

If you were in that spot would you sue?
Posted via Mobile Device

Based on what little info I have to make an observation with, I think I would be inclined to accept the owners offer.

But, as fans, we have too little info to make any real educated guesses as to what is right or wrong here.

It depends, if the offer I get is more than fair... then NO not a chance.. BUT if I feel that it isn't fair for my services and there is no other company that I can do the same job for... I better start looking into a new line of work. Period.

I don't begrudge the players the right to negotiate and ask for whatever they can get... but taking it to court is despicable.

This appears to be a fair offer from a distance, but we really don't have enough to know with certainty that it is, and as I said before, owners actions previously have earned a level of distrust.

These players, as you noted can't go out and get just another job.

So I don't begrudge their right to take the measures that are available to them.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:42 PM
I never claimed anyone here IS a socialist.. I just said that many are THINKING and rationalizing like socialists... FORCING the owners to open their books is just plain dumb.

Not when you have a monopoly. The NFL, like walmart and Microsoft, operate under unique rules.

Is the NFL gonna be Standard Oil or US Steel in the late 1800s--or AT&T in the 1970s; or are they gonna be Walmart and Microsoft?

Choice is theirs to make.... :hmmm:

WTF???? Exactly WHAT country do you live in??? That is NOT the law in any way shape or form.

Anti-trust legislation and judicial precedent; read up.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:43 PM
No, it's not.

If our relationship is dependent on one another to exist, I think it's only fair that both of us are compensated fairly.

If you need me, yet I'm only making a fraction of what you're earning, I'll ask for more.

If you deny me more income and I can't earn that income elsewhere, I'll sue you for more income.

The bottom line is that you can't exist without me. Period.

This is where your argument is both dangerous and immoral. WAAAH, I can't negotiate well enough so I'll let the courts decide. Jesus. Again, if you want to nationalize the damn sport, go for it... but as it stands that is not how business is run in this country.

Bottom line, if the owners decide to draw a line in the sand over opening their books... no one is going to be able to force them.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 10:43 PM
why would you sue?

the players should call their bluff and find something else to maker their millions. Not sue. No, it's not.

If our relationship is dependent on one another to exist, I think it's only fair that both of us are compensated fairly.

If you need me, yet I'm only making a fraction of what you're earning, I'll ask for more.

If you deny me more income and I can't earn that income elsewhere, I'll sue you for more income.

The bottom line is that you can't exist without me. Period.
Posted via Mobile Device

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:44 PM
Not when you have a monopoly. The NFL, like walmart and Microsoft, operate under unique rules.

Is the NFL gonna be Standard Oil or US Steel in the late 1800s; or are they gonna be Walmart and Microsoft?

Choice is theirs to make.... :hmmm:

um dude... that is not AT ALL true from either a legal or logical standpoint... but mostly just not at all the way the law is applied in this case.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:44 PM
HUH? That made no sense... are you claiming that without the players the league has no product?

Would you like to prove otherwise?

Do you think the networks will shell out $9 billion a year to see Ralph Wilson speak in an empty stadium?

Sure, well then the owners should just give them all the profits!

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that all of revenues generated by the NFL should go directly into the players' pockets, bypassing the owners.

It's a negotiation... both sides try to get the best deal... but it's crap to take it to court because you don't KNOW what the best deal is.

I don't personally know what the best deal is because the owners haven't shared their financial reports with the players, let alone each other.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 10:46 PM
I agree with what you responded to me milkman
Posted via Mobile Device

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:46 PM
...
Bottom line, if the owners decide to draw a line in the sand over opening their books... no one is going to be able to force them.

Anti-Trust law says otherwise. Heh. :)

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:46 PM
Based on what little info I have to make an observation with, I think I would be inclined to accept the owners offer.

But, as fans, we have too little info to make any real educated guesses as to what is right or wrong here.



This appears to be a fair offer from a distance, but we really don't have enough to know with certainty that it is, and as I said before, owners actions previously have earned a level of distrust.

These players, as you noted can't go out and get just another job.

So I don't begrudge their right to take the measures that are available to them.

Then if they feel their services are not fairly compensated they need to find a different line of work. PERIOD.

Lets imagine a player has 5 concussions and feels that it's only worth playing football if he is paid $1 billion a year... now, just because that is what he thinks is fair does that mean he has the right to sue? Or should he maybe go sell real estate?

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:47 PM
um dude... that is not AT ALL true from either a legal or logical standpoint... but mostly just not at all the way the law is applied in this case.

Wanna bet? Watch. :)

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:47 PM
This is where your argument is both dangerous and immoral. WAAAH, I can't negotiate well enough so I'll let the courts decide. Jesus. Again, if you want to nationalize the damn sport, go for it... but as it stands that is not how business is run in this country.

Business? Not usually.

Sports? Absolutely. There's no other way, unless you prefer baseball of the early 20th century in which the owners treated their players like slave labor.

Bottom line, if the owners decide to draw a line in the sand over opening their books... no one is going to be able to force them.

Then there won't be an NFL, there won't be a season and there will be no revenue from ticket holders or television networks.

They'll be stuck with loan payments, stadium payments, coaches and trainers under contract and no new money.

Sound good?

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:47 PM
Anti-Trust law says otherwise. Heh. :)

um no no they actually don't.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 10:48 PM
I may ASK .. I certainly don't have a RIGHT to demand it.

they are NEGOTIATING a new CBA.. what do you propose instead? How in HELL is it fair to the owners to force their hand in negotiations?

If you want to NATIONALIZE football (like it appears a few here do), then so be it.. but as it stands it is still a business... and FORCING the owners to open their books is a very very bad precedent.

Also.. to address the ridiculous argument that owners don't take risks .. tell that to Lamar Hunt in 1960 ... yes things worked out for his family but what about the original owners of the USFL teams... only one of whom turned a profit. At some point these people or their families took a HUGE financial risk. But I guess it's time to punish them for their good fortune.

You keep making the same faulty arguments, though.

Yes, the owners can refuse to show the books. They did that.

Yes, the players can tell the owners that there's no deal. They did that.


The question is not about the owners' right to withhold the information. It never was.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:48 PM
Business? Not usually.

Sports? Absolutely. There's no other way, unless you prefer baseball of the early 20th century in which the owners treated their players like slave labor.



Then there won't be an NFL, there won't be a season and there will be no revenue from ticket holders or television networks.

They'll be stuck with loan payments, stadium payments, coaches and trainers under contract and no new money.

Sound good?

We BOTH know the players will cave long before that would happen...

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:48 PM
why would you sue?

the players should call their bluff and find something else to maker their millions. Not sue.
Posted via Mobile Device

Oh really?

Wow Jason, with each post in this thread, you prove that you do not understand the issues at hand.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:49 PM
We BOTH know the players will cave long before that would happen...

Well, the owners will cave NOW, after the ruling last week in which they can't use the $4 BILLION dollars that the networks offered to set aside and pay them in the event of a lockout.

The owners are fucked. The players aren't.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 10:49 PM
And most players will be broke in two years.
The players have more to lose

.Business? Not usually.

Sports? Absolutely. There's no other way, unless you prefer baseball of the early 20th century in which the owners treated their players like slave labor.



Then there won't be an NFL, there won't be a season and there will be no revenue from ticket holders or television networks.

They'll be stuck with loan payments, stadium payments, coaches and trainers under contract and no new money.

Sound good?
Posted via Mobile Device

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:49 PM
You keep making the same faulty arguments, though.

Yes, the owners can refuse to show the books. They did that.

Yes, the players can tell the owners that there's no deal. They did that.


The question is not about the owners' right to withhold the information. It never was.

Yss it is... SOME in this thread are defending the players right to let the courts decide... when this is NOT something that belongs in the courts.

I am arguing that it is wrong for the players to SUE because they FAIL at negotiating.

milkman
03-11-2011, 10:50 PM
Then if they feel their services are not fairly compensated they need to find a different line of work. PERIOD.

Lets imagine a player has 5 concussions and feels that it's only worth playing football if he is paid $1 billion a year... now, just because that is what he thinks is fair does that mean he has the right to sue? Or should he maybe go sell real estate?

Entirely different situations.

The league is asking to take money back.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:51 PM
Well, the owners will cave NOW, after the ruling last week in which they can't use the $4 BILLION dollars that the networks offered to set aside and pay them in the event of a lockout.

The owners are fucked. The players aren't.

Once again... now that one of the parties to that suit no longer EXISTS... I could easily see that ruling set aside. Of Course, the owners won't go down that path until the NLRB rules on the decertification issue.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:52 PM
um no no they actually don't.

Watch. If the players can hold-out, Congress will revoke the lame anti-trust exemption. If that happens, players win.

Like you say though, I'm not sure the players will hold-out, though. Too bad if they don't.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:52 PM
And most players will be broke in two years.
Posted via Mobile Device

Based on what, Jason?

Are you claiming that the superstar players will be broke? Or just the guys that last only a couple of years in the NFL on average?

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 10:52 PM
Yss it is... SOME in this thread are defending the players right to let the courts decide... when this is NOT something that belongs in the courts.

And here, you're wrong. Now that the league exercised its right to say no, the union exercised its right to decertify, and players have exercised their right to sue, it is precisely something that belongs in the courts.

I am arguing that it is wrong for the players to SUE because they FAIL at negotiating.

And such a position is completely wrong. That's why I said your arguments are faulty.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:53 PM
Entirely different situations.

The league is asking to take money back.

NO they aren't... this is a new contract.. the old one with the union expired. If they were asking to invalidate players contracts and reduce them it would be a situation like the NBA had ... one in which they WERE forced to open their books. A number of Sports Lawyers have already weighed in on why that isn't at all the case here.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:54 PM
Ironic....that the growing national war on the middle and "working" class, may be most publicly made by millionaire NFL players.

LMAO

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:54 PM
Once again... now that one of the parties to that suit no longer EXISTS... I could easily see that ruling set aside. Of Course, the owners won't go down that path until the NLRB rules on the decertification issue.

There's no way that's reversed. And since Doty already overruled Burbank's decision, it's going to be next to impossible, if at all possible, to take it to the Supreme Court.

If it makes it to the Supreme Court, it'll likely take no less than 2 years, and by that time, this issue should be resolved.

Which in no way, shape or form, helps the owners during the 2011-2012 season.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:55 PM
Watch. If the players can hold-out, Congress will revoke the lame anti-trust exemption. If that happens, players win.

Like you say though, I'm not sure the players will hold-out, though. Too bad if they don't.

ARGHHH! Congress can't revoke an anti-trust exemption that doesn't exist de jure... it is a de facto exemption dammit. How many times do I need to point out this isn't baseball... they don't have a congressional exemption.

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 10:55 PM
Oh really?

Wow Jason, with each post in this thread, you prove that you do not understand the issues at hand.
Why because I think if thee players want to see the books and the owners don't wan't to show them the players should find another way to make their millions? They are the product right? Surely places would be lining up to throw millions at them.

they are dependent on the owners probably moreso than the owners on them.

Most owners have many other sources of income.

Football tanks? Bankrupt that mother fucker and walk away. Close that corporation down.

Live off your other sources.

What will thr players fall back on?
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-11-2011, 10:56 PM
How many are broke now and still playing?Based on what, Jason?

Are you claiming that the superstar players will be broke? Or just the guys that last only a couple of years in the NFL on average?
Posted via Mobile Device

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:57 PM
ARGHHH! Congress can't revoke an anti-trust exemption that doesn't exist de jure... it is a de facto exemption dammit. How many times do I need to point out this isn't baseball... they don't have a congressional exemption.

De facto or not, in reality it is the same; if the players hold out, owners WILL open their books.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:58 PM
NO they aren't... this is a new contract.. the old one with the union expired. If they were asking to invalidate players contracts and reduce them it would be a situation like the NBA had ... one in which they WERE forced to open their books. A number of Sports Lawyers have already weighed in on why that isn't at all the case here.

Dude, the bottom line is this:

1. The owners have asked the players to reduce their share of revenue.
2. The owners have asked the players to take a pay cut, from 60% to 50%.
3. The owners have asked the players to accept a rookie wage scale.
4. The owners have stated that they can't survive under the current economic system.
5. The owners have refused to state or open their books and prove why they can't survive the current economic system.

Now, why would the players agree to such cuts without proof?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 10:58 PM
Why because I think if thee players want to see the books and the owners don't wan't to show them the players should find another way to make their millions? They are the product right? Surely places would be lining up to throw millions at them.

they are dependent on the owners probably moreso than the owners on them.

Most owners have many other sources of income.

Football tanks? Bankrupt that mother fucker and walk away. Close that corporation down.

Live off your other sources.

What will thr players fall back on?
Posted via Mobile Device

JFC.

:facepalm:

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 10:59 PM
There's no way that's reversed. And since Doty already overruled Burbank's decision, it's going to be next to impossible, if at all possible, to take it to the Supreme Court.

If it makes it to the Supreme Court, it'll likely take no less than 2 years, and by that time, this issue should be resolved.

Which in no way, shape or form, helps the owners during the 2011-2012 season.

There is NO WAY it goes to the Supreme Court...

The WORST case for the NFL owners (if everything that can go wrong for them does) is simply no football until one part caves... which will be the players.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:00 PM
There is NO WAY it goes to the Supreme Court...

The WORST case for the NFL owners (if everything that can go wrong for them does) is simply no football until one part caves... which will be the players.

Yeah, but until the players agree to terms, they're not privy to the $4 billion dollars in TV money that the networks set aside, so they have NO new money in order to pay their debts.

They'll soon be laying off coaches, personnel and everyone associated with each team very shortly.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:02 PM
Dude, the bottom line is this:

1. The owners have asked the players to reduce their share of revenue.
2. The owners have asked the players to take a pay cut, from 60% to 50%.
3. The owners have asked the players to accept a rookie wage scale.
4. The owners have stated that they can't survive under the current economic system.
5. The owners have refused to state or open their books and prove why they can't survive the current economic system.

Now, why would the players agree to such cuts without proof?

They shouldn't agree to what you have posted which is the NFL's INITIAL offer... they should negotiate in GOOD FAITH... it appears that they did NOT do that and want to let the courts decide... trying to force the owners' hands ... The NFL offered a good deal and the Players Union is in the middle of a greedy power grab and never intended to take anything without seeing the books... which as I pointed out is bad faith negotiating.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:03 PM
De facto or not, in reality it is the same; if the players hold out, owners WILL open their books.

Wanna bet? I seriously doubt the owners offer any more open books then what was offered today.

milkman
03-11-2011, 11:04 PM
NO they aren't... this is a new contract.. the old one with the union expired. If they were asking to invalidate players contracts and reduce them it would be a situation like the NBA had ... one in which they WERE forced to open their books. A number of Sports Lawyers have already weighed in on why that isn't at all the case here.

Th situations are different because the players are negotiating a for a new contract that keeps them earning at the same level they earned before, on a contract that the owners opted out on.

The individual player in your example is trying to get more than he earned before.

bevischief
03-11-2011, 11:04 PM
They have already decertified once who is to say the courts will allow it again?

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:05 PM
There is NO WAY it goes to the Supreme Court...

The WORST case for the NFL owners (if everything that can go wrong for them does) is simply no football until one part caves... which will be the players.

The WORST case for the NFL owners is that Congress decides to have hearings and pulls the anti-trust exemption from the NFL. And yes, there is one, limited as it is. I'll post it for you:

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1291
§ 1291. Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues

The antitrust laws, as defined in section 1 of the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730) [15 U.S.C. 12], or in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (38 Stat. 717) [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], shall not apply to any joint agreement by or among persons engaging in or conducting the organized professional team sports of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, by which any league of clubs participating in professional football, baseball, basketball, or hockey contests sells or otherwise transfers all or any part of the rights of such league’s member clubs in the sponsored telecasting of the games of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, as the case may be, engaged in or conducted by such clubs. In addition, such laws shall not apply to a joint agreement by which the member clubs of two or more professional football leagues, which are exempt from income tax under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(6)], combine their operations in expanded single league so exempt from income tax, if such agreement increases rather than decreases the number of professional football clubs so operating, and the provisions of which are directly relevant thereto.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00001291----000-.html

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:05 PM
The NFL offered a good deal

How can you possibly make that assessment without all of the pertinent information?

And BTW, you were completely wrong earlier in regards to the TV contract info. I was working and couldn't fully respond but you owe me a beer, next time you're in hated Cali.

:D

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:06 PM
Yeah, but until the players agree to terms, they're not privy to the $4 billion dollars in TV money that the networks set aside, so they have NO new money in order to pay their debts.

They'll soon be laying off coaches, personnel and everyone associated with each team very shortly.

As I said... the ruling will not be REVERSED it will be set aside... you can't really enforce a contract when one party no longer exists. That wouldn't happen for another few months though. The owners can easily wait that long... and even WITHOUT that money.. they won't sell out their future over a few billion ... they will wait it out and the players will cave.

milkman
03-11-2011, 11:07 PM
They shouldn't agree to what you have posted which is the NFL's INITIAL offer... they should negotiate in GOOD FAITH... it appears that they did NOT do that and want to let the courts decide... trying to force the owners' hands ... The NFL offered a good deal and the Players Union is in the middle of a greedy power grab and never intended to take anything without seeing the books... which as I pointed out is bad faith negotiating.

And the owners, had they not lost that ruling last week, would never have gone into these negotiations with "good faith".

They have given the players no reason to trust, which is why the books are an issue.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:08 PM
As I said... the ruling will not be REVERSED it will be set aside... you can't really enforce a contract when one party no longer exists. That wouldn't happen for another few months though. The owners can easily wait that long... and even WITHOUT that money.. they won't sell out their future over a few billion ... they will wait it out and the players will cave.

Since it was already sent to a higher court and sent back down to Doty, it'll need to go to the Supreme Court. And I highly doubt they'll be in any rush to get involved, meaning it'll be a few years and at time, it shouldn't matter.

What it does mean is that the owners should be more inclined to make a deal with the players.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:09 PM
Th situations are different because the players are negotiating a for a new contract that keeps them earning at the same level they earned before, on a contract that the owners opted out on.

The individual player in your example is trying to get more than he earned before.

No, that would be true if it affected CURRENT contracts... IT DOES NOT. It applies only to FUTURE contracts. NO ONE IS TAKING A PAY CUT ON THE MONEY PROMISED THEM.

Shogun
03-11-2011, 11:10 PM
Don't worry guys, I have a feeling Tebow talked to the big guy upstairs about this, its all but covered now.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:10 PM
No, that would be true if it affected CURRENT contracts... IT DOES NOT. It applies only to FUTURE contracts. NO ONE IS TAKING A PAY CUT ON THE MONEY PROMISED THEM.

Again, this is incorrect. The union as a whole is taking a paycut on the money promised in the CBA prior to the opt out.

luv
03-11-2011, 11:12 PM
Everyone else get this email?

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.



Yours,
Roger Goodell

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:12 PM
Since it was already sent to a higher court and sent back down to Doty, it'll need to go to the Supreme Court. And I highly doubt they'll be in any rush to get involved, meaning it'll be a few years and at time, it shouldn't matter.

What it does mean is that the owners should be more inclined to make a deal with the players.

Again, not true. It would not need to go to the Supreme Court... are you not getting what I am saying here?

They would simply need to file a motion based on the substantial change of circumstances. (i.e. the union no longer existing)

milkman
03-11-2011, 11:14 PM
No, that would be true if it affected CURRENT contracts... IT DOES NOT. It applies only to FUTURE contracts. NO ONE IS TAKING A PAY CUT ON THE MONEY PROMISED THEM.

No individual player is taking a paycut, but the amount of money going to the players, as a group, is being reduced.

In your hypothetical, the player is the party involved.

In these negotions, the union (the group) is the party involved.

This party is trying to keep what it already has,

Your party is trying to increase his income.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:16 PM
Again, not true. It would not need to go to the Supreme Court... are you not getting what I am saying here?

They would simply need to file a motion based on the substantial change of circumstances. (i.e. the union no longer existing)

Yeah, but it won't work. Legal minds have already chimed in and said it would need to go to the highest court in the land.

Regardless of whether or not there's a union, there's now a "trade of players" that can't work because there's no agreement in place.

The NFL will certainly lockout the players because if they don't, they're opening themselves to massive liability. Can you imagine Drew Brees or Peyton Manning injuring themselves in their respective training facilities without a CBA or agreement in place?

Dude, there are so many issues at stake here.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:16 PM
Again, not true. It would not need to go to the Supreme Court... are you not getting what I am saying here?

They would simply need to file a motion based on the substantial change of circumstances. (i.e. the union no longer existing)

I don't know if you've seen it, but SI's McCann has written about what could happen next:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/03/11/whatnext/index.html

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:17 PM
Again, this is incorrect. The union as a whole is taking a paycut on the money promised in the CBA prior to the opt out.

WTF? OMG, that is not a fucking pay cut. It's a new CBA... this happens ALL THE TIME.

So, based on your thinking... all new CBA's should give employees increases ACROSS THE BOARD (salary, benefits, etc) unless a company opens its books to the union. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Let me reiterate... no matter HOW MANY TIME the union calls it a "pay cut" it is a lower overall percentage of revenue on the next contract.. it is NOT a pay cut. I feel like I am arguing against Humpty Dumpty.

Shogun
03-11-2011, 11:18 PM
Champ Bailey might die before he gets to play again

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:18 PM
Update:

We are still waiting for an official announcement from the NFL, but ESPN’s Adam Schefter says a lockout is a done deal.

Schefter reports that the NFL owners will lock the players out midnight, as expected.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/report-lockout-starts-at-midnight/

bevischief
03-11-2011, 11:18 PM
College football better step up to fill the void if they are smart... The real question will the courts allow them to decertified again...

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:18 PM
WTF? OMG, that is not a fucking pay cut. It's a new CBA... this happens ALL THE TIME.

So, based on your thinking... all new CBA's should give employees increases ACROSS THE BOARD (salary, benefits, etc) unless a company opens its books to the union. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Let me reiterate... no matter HOW MANY TIME the union calls it a "pay cut" it is a lower overall percentage of revenue on the next contract.. it is NOT a pay cut. I feel like I am arguing against Humpty Dumpty.

How can you ask your employees, nee partners, to take a pay cut when your revenues are at an all-time high ($9 billion per year, minimum) and your popularity is up 31% in the past five years?

That's like a manager asking Brad Pitt to take less money and pay his agent a higher percentage because he just starred in five of the biggest movies of all time.

WTF?

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:20 PM
WTF? OMG, that is not a ****ing pay cut. It's a new CBA... this happens ALL THE TIME.

So, based on your thinking... all new CBA's should give employees increases ACROSS THE BOARD (salary, benefits, etc) unless a company opens its books to the union. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Let me reiterate... no matter HOW MANY TIME the union calls it a "pay cut" it is a lower overall percentage of revenue on the next contract.. it is NOT a pay cut. I feel like I am arguing against Humpty Dumpty.

Your argument about the pay increases has nothing to do with my point, or Milkman's. You claimed there was no pay cut. There would have been a pay cut of hundreds of millions of dollars for 2011.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:21 PM
Yeah, but it won't work. Legal minds have already chimed in and said it would need to go to the highest court in the land.

Regardless of whether or not there's a union, there's now a "trade of players" that can't work because there's no agreement in place.

The NFL will certainly lockout the players because if they don't, they're opening themselves to massive liability. Can you imagine Drew Brees or Peyton Manning injuring themselves in their respective training facilities without a CBA or agreement in place?

Dude, there are so many issues at stake here.

I have yet to hear ONE legal mind discuss the aspect we are talking about... there is NO valid legal reason that the most recent Doty ruling can't be set aside. Doty would need to bend over backwards to actually keep the ruling in place IF the Union is allowed to decertify... again, we will need to find out what happens THERE first.

And yes, the NFL will go with a lockout if they can.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:21 PM
Update:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/report-lockout-starts-at-midnight/

And it's all but over.

There you go, Kyle.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:23 PM
I have yet to hear ONE legal mind discuss the aspect we are talking about... there is NO valid legal reason that the most recent Doty ruling can't be set aside. Doty would need to bend over backwards to actually keep the ruling in place IF the Union is allowed to decertify... again, we will need to find out what happens THERE first.

And yes, the NFL will go with a lockout if they can.

The NFL cannot proceed with a lockout because the players won't be involved.

The networks will NOT pay the NFL because there is no product and the $4 billion they tried to get in advance, in case of a lockout, was rejected by Doty after being approved by Burbank.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:26 PM
Your argument about the pay increases has nothing to do with my point, or Milkman's. You claimed there was no pay cut. There is a pay cut of hundreds of millions of dollars.

try rereading what I typed.

ok...

The Owners offered increases in EVERY aspect (benefits, guarantees, etc) except the overall percentage.. in that case they actually did increase the base percentage but wanted a higher "expense" amount taken out... so, as I stated in my post... even though there were increases.. those increases need to be ACROSS THE BOARD or at minimum held at current levels.. otherwise big brother court gets involved? That is simply stupid.

You are basically saying that the league has no right to negotiate a new deal unless they bend over for the players. Jesus.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:28 PM
You are basically saying that the league has no right to negotiate a new deal unless they bend over for the players. Jesus.

It's a symbiotic relationship. No one is trying to take money or revenue from the owners, yet the owners are trying to keep and take money from the players.

No players: No NFL.

No NFL, no revenues for the owners.

No revenues for the owners, layoffs and defaulted loans.

It's pretty simple.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:32 PM
try rereading what I typed.

ok...

The Owners offered increases in EVERY aspect (benefits, guarantees, etc) except the overall percentage.. in that case they actually did increase the base percentage but wanted a higher "expense" amount taken out... so, as I stated in my post... even though there were increases.. those increases need to be ACROSS THE BOARD or at minimum held at current levels.. otherwise big brother court gets involved? That is simply stupid.

You are basically saying that the league has no right to negotiate a new deal unless they bend over for the players. Jesus.

Again you use the word right. That's a bit sloppy, particularly with someone who's trying to split hairs about 'pay cuts' This is not about "right". The owners had a right to tell the players to piss off. They did that. The players followed that up by taking the owners to court, a right that they had.

The owners were seeking a pay cut for the NFLPA. They offered some concessions in return, but the pay cut was being sought in the form of a revenue percentage reduction through the mechanism of a larger share of the revenue pie being exempted.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 11:34 PM
Ironic....that the growing national war on the middle and "working" class, may be most publicly made by millionaire NFL players.

LMAO

And how many of those same middle and working class individuals will defend the dishonest business tactics of billionaires.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:34 PM
Another followup, this from NFL.com:

WASHINGTON -- NFL labor talks broke down Friday, just hours before the collective bargaining agreement was set to expire, as the union rejected a proposal from the league, then decertified, and 10 players, including MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, sued the owners in federal court.

In response, the NFL will impose a lockout of players, starting at midnight, after the CBA officially expires, two team sources told NFL Network insider Michael Lombardi.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb6e46/article/league-will-lock-out-players-whose-union-decertified?module=HP_headlines

I'm also being told that the NFL network is reporting that the owners have, in fact, locked the players out. I don't have a cite for that, and I'm not watching NFLN, so someone might wish to check on that.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:36 PM
The NFL cannot proceed with a lockout because the players won't be involved.

The networks will NOT pay the NFL because there is no product and the $4 billion they tried to get in advance, in case of a lockout, was rejected by Doty after being approved by Burbank.

wow. ok

#1 I never disputed that the nfl would go with a lockout.. it's the next logical step.. I'm not sure what you are trying to point out here..

#2 Are the sports stations in LA feeding you this info? because it's so far off base that I can't imagine where you are getting it.... the Doty ruling states that the $4 billion was negotiated in bad faith in relation to the current CBA with the union... he proposed further hearings to determine it's fate and the $4 billion was likely to be put aside in escrow.. now that there is no union... the networks could argue not to pay it.. but in doing so risk serious future problems with the NFL.. the networks are NOT going to argue in any upcoming hearings... so who is? the non -existent union?

If you truly believe the networks are going to skip out on money they specifically stated would be paid EVEN IF there was a lockout... you are insane.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 11:36 PM
The only good thing about this is that it happened on Goodell's watch. The lionizing of that stooge makes absolutely no sense.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:38 PM
The only good thing about this is that it happened on Goodell's watch. The lionizing of that stooge makes absolutely no sense.

Here is a point we can all agree on.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:42 PM
It's a symbiotic relationship. No one is trying to take money or revenue from the owners, yet the owners are trying to keep and take money from the players.

No players: No NFL.

No NFL, no revenues for the owners.

No revenues for the owners, layoffs and defaulted loans.

It's pretty simple.

and again, the owners can hold out a hell of a lot longer than the players...

just to be clear, I have no problem with the union using the threat of the courts if they truly intend to continue to negotiate and find a solution...if they are simply going to ride it out and leave it to the courts.. then I hope they get screwed royally.

Remember, there is no LAW that says they can't keep negotiating and have a new deal in place Monday if they wanted.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:45 PM
and again, the owners can hold out a hell of a lot longer than the players...

just to be clear, I have no problem with the union using the threat of the courts if they truly intend to continue to negotiate and find a solution...if they are simply going to ride it out and leave it to the courts.. then I hope they get screwed royally.

Remember, there is no LAW that says they can't keep negotiating and have a new deal in place Monday if they wanted.

What is it that you think is left to negotiate? The owners want money. The union won't give it without getting acceptable reasons. This never had to happen, assuming the owners are actually being honest about the data. And, since there is no longer a union, who are the owners supposed to negotiate with?

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2011, 11:46 PM
and again, the owners can hold out a hell of a lot longer than the players...

That's debatable.

just to be clear, I have no problem with the union using the threat of the courts if they truly intend to continue to negotiate and find a solution...if they are simply going to ride it out and leave it to the courts.. then I hope they get screwed royally.

Remember, there is no LAW that says they can't keep negotiating and have a new deal in place Monday if they wanted.

Yes but from all accounts, a new deals will take at least 4-6 weeks minimum.

I hope it happens sooner but as I've stated repeatedly over the course of the past 18 months, I don't think it'll happen quickly.

AustinChief
03-11-2011, 11:52 PM
What is it that you think is left to negotiate? The owners want money. The union won't give it without getting acceptable reasons. This never had to happen, assuming the owners are actually being honest about the data. And, since there is no longer a union, who are the owners supposed to negotiate with?

The union is now a trade association(contingent on NLRB hearing) and can negotiate on the players' behalf.

Just Passin' By
03-11-2011, 11:56 PM
The union is now a trade association(contingent on NLRB hearing) and can negotiate on the players' behalf.

The NFL will almost definitely file a grievance with the NLRB, and the NFLPA will file for an injunction against the lockout. It's likely that neither side will bother negotiating until those are resolved, since this is now the weekend and those actions will likely be taken on Monday. There's nobody to negotiate with until that happens.

bowener
03-12-2011, 01:24 AM
Goodell's services are now officially worth $1/year.

BIG_DADDY
03-12-2011, 01:26 AM
That's debatable.



Yes but from all accounts, a new deals will take at least 4-6 weeks minimum.

I hope it happens sooner but as I've stated repeatedly over the course of the past 18 months, I don't think it'll happen quickly.

In the interim it would be nice to see someone put a cap in DeMaurices block.

Just Passin' By
03-12-2011, 01:27 AM
Goodell's services are now officially worth $1/year.

He'd still be overpaid.