NFLPA--not the smartest guys in the room

[nucci]

I was listening to Sirius radio either last night or this morning and they were disussing this very topic about the new CBA. They basically said the players don't have much for options but one way they could sock it to the owners would be to strike this year for the playoffs.

That will certainly help negotiations.

[Mr. WEO]

All players saw more money from the last CBA doc. From the superstars making tens of millions more, to the scrubs making tens of thousands more in minimum salaries. To the tune of around $1B collectively.

 

And don't mistake the NFLPA's tactics as them just discovering the truth. We on this message board have been talking about this stuff for a year now. They obviously have known about it for awhile and are trying every avenue to gain leverage as the 11th hour approaches.

All players did not see more money. You know that's not true. Contracts weren't rewritten and teams were free to not pay the "extra" money.

 

If this is the union's big play, then they may as well get their pens out and sign whatever the owners push in front of them.

 

 

They've known about what, the "war chest" the owners have accrued with these awesome, guaranteed and filthy rich TV contracts they negotiated before the last CBA? Is that what "we" were talking about for the past year?

[Doc]

All players did not see more money. You know that's not true. Contracts weren't rewritten and teams were free to not pay the "extra" money.

 

If this is the union's big play, then they may as well get their pens out and sign whatever the owners push in front of them.

 

 

They've known about what, the "war chest" the owners have accrued with these awesome, guaranteed and filthy rich TV contracts they negotiated before the last CBA? Is that what "we" were talking about for the past year?

I don't know if every player saw more money doc, but collectively they saw about a billion dollars more. I showed you the numbers. Everyone else saw them as well. Again you continue to be the only one who has a problem with what I say.

 

Now you are correct that teams didn't spend ALL of the available cap space every year, but that's been true since they instituted a salary cap. Moreover it's moot when you look at the actual dollars spent compared to prior to the new CBA. And while this is the first and ONLY year where the owners reigned-in their spending, I'd still wager when all the numbers shake out that it will still be more (if even slightly) than it would have been under the old CBA. If you want to continue to believe that the cap went up but the owners still spent at the previous level, go right ahead. Some people still think the earth is about 5,000 years old.

 

And again, why whip out the pens now? If the special master doesn't rule in their favor, nothing changes. But it's worth waiting and seeing. Just like with the NFL-ANI case, which many predicted would be a coup d'etat for the NFL, since their "best and brightest" decided to go ahead and have the SCOTUS hear the case. Should they have whipped-out the pens prior to that ruling as well?

 

Um yes, we have been talking about the "war chest" for the past year. Perhaps you missed it, even though you partook in the discussion. Again if we knew about it, they surely knew about it well beforehand.

[Captain Caveman]

I was listening to Sirius radio either last night or this morning and they were disussing this very topic about the new CBA. They basically said the players don't have much for options but one way they could sock it to the owners would be to strike this year for the playoffs.

 

I wonder if the NFL still sees the TV money in the case of a strike? This would be very interesting, and would also quite possible kill my interest in football. Who am I kidding, I'd be back, especially since the Bills won't be in the playoffs anyway.

[Jerry Jabber]

Sure there is. Goddell has already hinted they are going to use replacement players. Look the League is going to go on in some form or fashon, with or without the current players.

 

the NFLPA better cut the bull ****, they can't win this.

 

Bring on Shane Falco and Coach McGinty. GO FALCO!!!

[Jerry Jabber]

I was listening to Sirius radio either last night or this morning and they were disussing this very topic about the new CBA. They basically said the players don't have much for options but one way they could sock it to the owners would be to strike this year for the playoffs.

 

That idea is about as dumb as the idea that was floated around here about doing a walkout after the 1st quarter at RWS. So, the NFL players are gonna bust their butts during training camp, pre-season and the regular season to make it to the playoffs, then say "I'm not playing, I'm going on strike". That makes no sense.

[Mr. WEO]

You, yesterday:

 

All players saw more money from the last CBA doc.

 

You today:

 

I don't know if every player saw more money doc, but collectively they saw about a billion dollars more. I showed you the numbers. Everyone else saw them as well. Again you continue to be the only one who has a problem with what I say.

 

Now you are correct that teams didn't spend ALL of the available cap space every year, but that's been true since they instituted a salary cap. Moreover it's moot when you look at the actual dollars spent compared to prior to the new CBA. And while this is the first and ONLY year where the owners reigned-in their spending, I'd still wager when all the numbers shake out that it will still be more (if even slightly) than it would have been under the old CBA. If you want to continue to believe that the cap went up but the owners still spent at the previous level, go right ahead. Some people still think the earth is about 5,000 years old.

 

You can't even remember one day what you conceded the day before.

 

Anyway......The "old CBA" was expiring, dude. Also, the cap went up 7 million higher in the first year under the CBA than it would have gone any way. Yet hundreds of millions of "new cap money went unspent. Big spending teams were laying about as much in 09 as in 06. Tha't two years of crazy spending in between, I guess.

 

You obviously don't understand the reason the NFL was willing to support a case against them on the SCOTUS. Losing the case costs them very little. However, a ruling in their favor would have changed everything forever in their favor. Somehow you missed that---it was a pretty big deal, potentially for them.

 

 

 

And again, why whip out the pens now? If the special master doesn't rule in their favor, nothing changes. But it's worth waiting and seeing. Just like with the NFL-ANI case, which many predicted would be a coup d'etat for the NFL, since their "best and brightest" decided to go ahead and have the SCOTUS hear the case. Should they have whipped-out the pens prior to that ruling as well?

 

Um yes, we have been talking about the "war chest" for the past year. Perhaps you missed it, even though you partook in the discussion. Again if we knew about it, they surely knew about it well beforehand.

Yeah, "we" were talking about it, that is for sure. You, on the other hand were of this mind back then......

 

 

And the "war chest" idea is silly. That's what the uncapped year is for, because while there is no ceiling, there is also no floor, and teams can spend as little as they want, saving money for the impending lockout.

[DarthICE]

I say drop the amount of money they have to distribute to 50% tops and tell the NFLPA to accept it or get bent. I am more than willing to lock out spoiled multi millionares and let them go WORK for a living and try to afford their lifestyles with a REAL JOB.

 

Bring in Replacements and lets move on.

[K Gun Special]

I say drop the amount of money they have to distribute to 50% tops and tell the NFLPA to accept it or get bent. I am more than willing to lock out spoiled multi millionares and let them go WORK for a living and try to afford their lifestyles with a REAL JOB.

 

Bring in Replacements and lets move on.

 

 

That doesnt benefit either side.

[Malazan]

Striking during the playoffs? That seems like it would really get the fans behind them.

[bills in va]

Sure, but there is no league without the players...

Actually there is, albeit not as good. Watch'em strike or get locked out and we will see replacement players again. It's not the chicken or the egg argument. The owners come first, who hire players. The Owners have all the leverage because they are still all billionaires with or without being entertained by football. Where else can any NFL player earn millions-nowhere!

[K Gun Special]

Actually there is, albeit not as good. Watch'em strike or get locked out and we will see replacement players again. It's not the chicken or the egg argument. The owners come first, who hire players. The Owners have all the leverage because they are still all billionaires with or without being entertained by football. Where else can any NFL player earn millions-nowhere!

 

 

Except some owners derive most of their income from the NFL, like jerry jones (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ys-forbesnflowners012108)

 

Are fans going to flock to his new stadium to watch scrubs? are they going to buy jerseys with some scrub name on it ? NO that is why the owners dont just lock out the players and move on.

[Doc]

You, yesterday:

 

You today:

 

You can't even remember one day what you conceded the day before.

Wow, score a big victory for yourself, doc. You are nothing if not concrete.

 

Anyway......The "old CBA" was expiring, dude. Also, the cap went up 7 million higher in the first year under the CBA than it would have gone any way. Yet hundreds of millions of "new cap money went unspent. Big spending teams were laying about as much in 09 as in 06. Tha't two years of crazy spending in between, I guess.

Again, "hundreds of millions" of cap money has ALWAYS gone unspent, dude. That's like crowing over the discovery that water is wet. And you might want to check your numbers for 2006 and 2009, dude. The top team last year (NYG) spent $6.5M more than the top team (Colts) in 2006. The 2nd team spent almost $2M more. Then the next 8 teams from last year spend more than the 3rd team in 2006, several by $7M or more, more. And so on. Not to mention as I showed, teams spent over $400M more in 2006 than 2005, only about half of which was from the cap increasing.

You obviously don't understand the reason the NFL was willing to support a case against them on the SCOTUS. Losing the case costs them very little. However, a ruling in their favor would have changed everything forever in their favor. Somehow you missed that---it was a pretty big deal, potentially for them.

And...the special master potentially agreeing to put the TV money in escrow isn't? Obviously you don't understand that concept.

Yeah, "we" were talking about it, that is for sure. You, on the other hand were of this mind back then......

The "war chest" idea IS silly. It's not a war chest; it was a negotiated part of the TV contracts to give the owners their TV money in the event of no football being played. Something they've had since the first CBA.

[Mr. WEO]

Wow, score a big victory for yourself, doc. You are nothing if not concrete.

 

 

Again, "hundreds of millions" of cap money has ALWAYS gone unspent, dude. That's like crowing over the discovery that water is wet. And you might want to check your numbers for 2006 and 2009, dude. The top team last year (NYG) spent $6.5M more than the top team (Colts) in 2006. The 2nd team spent almost $2M more. Then the next 8 teams from last year spend more than the 3rd team in 2006, several by $7M or more, more. And so on. Not to mention as I showed, teams spent over $400M more in 2006 than 2005, only about half of which was from the cap increasing.

 

And...the special master potentially agreeing to put the TV money in escrow isn't? Obviously you don't understand that concept.

 

The "war chest" idea IS silly. It's not a war chest; it was a negotiated part of the TV contracts to give the owners their TV money in the event of no football being played. Something they've had since the first CBA.

Yes, when I quote your plainly contradictory arguments, I am "concrete". I guess I am to assume that everything you say may have another or even opposite meaning when it suits you. Got it.

 

Yes, some teams spent a few million more than others did 3 years prior--they were going to anyway as the cap goes up annually. That adds up to "a billion more than they would have paid under the old CBA (which would have expired anyway..)"---despite still allowing for hundreds millions of........that's right, unspent cap money? In order for the owners to have paid out a billion more than they would have before the CBA, they would all first have to spend to the original escalating cap AND an extra $8 million on top of that--all of them, every year, for 4 years.

 

The TV is a massive war chest. Hard to imagine an argument against something so obvious. It's guaranteed money for the owners that the players cannot have. If it's been around

since the first CBA

, clearly the players were not aware of this. But hey, since the union agreed to every subsequent CBA, that would kind of make the special master's dismissal of this request pretty easy, no?

 

Speaking of which, the potential benefit of a favorable ruling for the NFL regarding American Needle is about 100 orders of magnitude greater than the benefit the players might derive from an escrow order. The effect of the former would have been a permanent change in the way the NFL did business with players and would have rendered the balance of power completely in the hands of the owners. No more CBAs. The latter may provide a temporary advantage to the players in their current dispute with their employers. Any attempt to equate these two legal gambits betrays a deepening misundderstanding of how things work. You're better off sticking with the circadian flip-flops.

[Doc]

Yes, when I quote your plainly contradictory arguments, I am "concrete". I guess I am to assume that everything you say may have another or even opposite meaning when it suits you. Got it.

 

Yes, some teams spent a few million more than others did 3 years prior--they were going to anyway as the cap goes up annually. That adds up to "a billion more than they would have paid under the old CBA (which would have expired anyway..)"---despite still allowing for hundreds millions of........that's right, unspent cap money? In order for the owners to have paid out a billion more than they would have before the CBA, they would all first have to spend to the original escalating cap AND an extra $8 million on top of that--all of them, every year, for 4 years.

 

The TV is a massive war chest. Hard to imagine an argument against something so obvious. It's guaranteed money for the owners that the players cannot have. If it's been around, clearly the players were not aware of this. But hey, since the union agreed to every subsequent CBA, that would kind of make the special master's dismissal of this request pretty easy, no?

 

Speaking of which, the potential benefit of a favorable ruling for the NFL regarding American Needle is about 100 orders of magnitude greater than the benefit the players might derive from an escrow order. The effect of the former would have been a permanent change in the way the NFL did business with players and would have rendered the balance of power completely in the hands of the owners. No more CBAs. The latter may provide a temporary advantage to the players in their current dispute with their employers. Any attempt to equate these two legal gambits betrays a deepening misundderstanding of how things work. You're better off sticking with the circadian flip-flops.

No, you're concrete because you dwell on minutiae and can't see the forest for the trees. You sound like my youngest son ("but you said 'all' and then said 'not every'"). I'd like to chalk it up to a stalling/deflecting technique on your part when you've got nothing else, but you've done it so many times now...

 

You see, the central issue isn't whether EVERY SINGLE PLAYER got more money, but how much more money the players as a whole extracted from the owners with that last CBA. You continue to be in denial over just how much more they made because you've cast your lot with the owners' crafting of this "good deal...until the situation changed." I even gave you the numbers and it still doesn't register. Well go back and add-up the team payrolls from 2005 and 2006, look at what the caps were/were supposed to be and ended-up being, compare them, and THEN try to continue to claim that the difference was "well, it was going to go up anyway." And then go back and add-up 2009, compare it to 2006, and realize how laughable your claim that the league spent about as much in those years was. Then do it for 2007 and 2008. It's right there at your fingertips, chief.

 

The point about us fans knowing that the owners would get paid if there were no games, since, well, it's been included in every TV contract for the past decade or so, is that the NFLPA obviously already knew about this, years ago. So your thread laughing at the NFLPA for suddenly coming to this realization, based on them wanting the TV money to be put in escrow (I fail to see how you made the leap from that request to "they didn't know the owners would get paid..") was all in vain. Again, it's a negotiating tactic which, while not as huge a victory as the NFL winning the ANI case (which I predicted wouldn't happen) would have been, would be a significant step towards the players forcing the owners to give up more than they want to at present since they would lose that (for lack of a better term) "war chest." That's not to say they'll win, but it's still worth pursuing since if they lose, they lose nothing, and it won't cost anything, much less what the NFL spent on the ANI case. At worst, some more worthless threads on message boards will be created.

[peteski]

I don't feel sorry for the players. Owners of any company are supposed to make money. the players get paid handsomely and shouldn't B word.

Everybody who works for companies feel like they should make more. If they don't like it than they can go to the UFL and see how much money they make.

[sweatpantsjoe]

Bring on Shane Falco and Coach McGinty. GO FALCO!!!

 

You can't use replacement players in the event of a lock out. You can only use them if there is a strike.

[justnzane]

Except some owners derive most of their income from the NFL,

ok like ralphy or the mara's who have owned their franchises for a long time

like jerry jones (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ys-forbesnflowners012108)

that article fails to mention that jones bought the cowboys with money earned from being an oil tycoon.

Are fans going to flock to his new stadium to watch scrubs? are they going to buy jerseys with some scrub name on it ? NO that is why the owners dont just lock out the players and move on.

when it comes down to jones he wants to eliminate the cba to benefit himself and his franchise while screwing smaller markets like buffalo. ralphy would probably want the cap set up like it was back before the last CBA. This way small market teams would actually have a chance while big market teams would have to redistribute the wealth. I know it is a communist idea, but it worked well in practice for the NFL. Now since the economy is crap, no one can afford to be greedy.

[Meathead]

one word: scab superbowl

[nucci]

one word: scab superbowl

That's two words.