NFLPA takes it's first beating

[Delete This Account]

One would think that the League's COO would be more heavily involved in the nuts & bolts of the negotiated deal, not the Commish. How did things work out for that guy?

actually, Tags apparently took the lead role on talks, with influence from leading owners such as Kraft, Jones and I would imagine Rooney. if i recall correctly, they were the trio or foursome who lobbied the rest of the owners to accept this deal. as i was told of what happened, the small-market owners were holding out for a better deal before their side collapsed after both Al Davis and Weaver, the Jags' owner, bolted to the other side and spoke in favor of approving the deal. that left the Bills and Bengals on the outside.

 

there's a big belief that Davis was rewarded for his move by getting several prime time games in the upcoming season.

not sure what Weaver got out of it.

 

again, Goodell was involved, i'm sure. to what degree, i don't know. there is a perception out there that this was Tagliabue's baby, and a deal he dearly wanted in order to keep his slate clean.

there's a belief that's backfired on him for how the deal was handled, and the labor uncertainty that's followed. and it's a key reason Tags will have difficulty getting into the Pro Football Hall of Fame as it stands now.

 

Goodell has been left to pick up the pieces and used his time wisely in preparing the owners while also putting a solid team together -- including the lawyer you represented the NHL in the last lockout -- in going forward. i have been very impressed in my dealings with Goodell so far.

 

jw

[Beerball]

actually, Tags apparently took the lead role on talks, with influence from leading owners such as Kraft, Jones and I would imagine Rooney. if i recall correctly, they were the trio or foursome who lobbied the rest of the owners to accept this deal. as i was told of what happened, the small-market owners were holding out for a better deal before their side collapsed after both Al Davis and Weaver, the Jags' owner, bolted to the other side and spoke in favor of approving the deal. that left the Bills and Bengals on the outside.

 

there's a big belief that Davis was rewarded for his move by getting several prime time games in the upcoming season.

not sure what Weaver got out of it.

 

again, Goodell was involved, i'm sure. to what degree, i don't know. there is a perception out there that this was Tagliabue's baby, and a deal he dearly wanted in order to keep his slate clean.

there's a belief that's backfired on him for how the deal was handled, and the labor uncertainty that's followed. and it's a key reason Tags will have difficulty getting into the Pro Football Hall of Fame as it stands now.

 

Goodell has been left to pick up the pieces and used his time wisely in preparing the owners while also putting a solid team together -- including the lawyer you represented the NHL in the last lockout -- in going forward. i have been very impressed in my dealings with Goodell so far.jw

Appreciate your perspective.

[JohnC]

Goodell has been left to pick up the pieces and used his time wisely in preparing the owners while also putting a solid team together -- including the lawyer you represented the NHL in the last lockout -- in going forward. i have been very impressed in my dealings with Goodell so far.

 

jw

 

John W, Could you tell me what pieces Goodell needs to pick up left over from the Taglibue deal? The owners are, in general, doing extremely well in a very inhospitable economic environment? The owners could have very comfortably waited for this deal to expire before laying down the hammer on the players. They didn't because they felt that now was a propitious time to use their dominant leverage.

 

There is a strong under current going on here that many people are not acknowledging. The business model has changed. The owners are now being forced to build their own palaces with little public money. Those who have been forced to take the financial plunge of paying off their own stadium bonds want to keep more of their internal stadium revenue. Old guard owners such as Wilson, Brown, Davis are being outmuscled by the new generation of owners such as Kraft, Snyder and Jerry Jones who have put their own ducats on the line.

 

It doesn't sit well with Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder that they are scrambling to maximize their revenue in-take while the slackers and whiners like Ralph want a bigger cut of the revenue from the actual risk takers. You don't think that they are a bit perturbed when they see a shyster owner such as Wilson pocket the shared money and then for almost a generation not bother to put out a respectable product in a system disigned for parity? You don't think that Snyder isn't irritated that the baron owner of the Bills complains about money, yet still refuses to sell the naming rights to his narcissticly named Ralph Wilson Stadium? Dan Snyder snapped at Ralph at an ownership meeting when the owner went into one of his tiresome mantras how he could not financially keep up? The young owner asked the elderly owner why he was leaving money on the table by not selling the naming rights to the stadium he controls. Ralph's nonsensical response was that is the way he wants it.

 

The basic point I'm making is that there is as much of a struggle going on between the more entreprenual owners and the old guard owners, who have richly benefited from the old wealth transferring system.

 

-- including the lawyer you represented the NHL in the last lockout -- in going forward. i have been very impressed in my dealings with Goodell so far.

 

The NHL and NFL management/labor situations are far from being comparable. The NHL had to build a new business model because the old model resulted in a collapse of the system. As it stood it was not viable. There had to be changes for the league to survive. With respect to the NFL the $$$ pot is enormous. It comes down to how to share the pot. What the owners have to realize is that having the muscle shouldn't cloud them into doing what is right and reasonable. Compromising is more often a sign of strength, not weakness.

[spartacus]

how absurd.

i'm not sure if you're questioning the word "lockout" or questioning whether the nfl hasn't made plans in the event there will be no deal by March 3.

either way, that's well, absurd.

 

the players won't strike. they don't need to. they like the existing deal. ergo, the nfl is the one that would have to lock out the players in order to get a new deal.

secondly, the lockout is pending because there is no deal.

 

 

 

if the players don't have the solidarity, why is it they have all but unanimously agreed to decertify if necessary? and i do know many Bills players were preparing for a lockout when i spoke to them in the weeks leading up to the end of the season.

 

 

 

though true, the players don't get paid until the season begins, you're wrong in saying a lockout won't have any affect.

free-agents won't have the opportunity to negotiate contracts or collect the substantial bonuses that would come with them.

roster bonus clauses negotiated into numerous contracts will not be paid out at the start of the new year, March 4.

health insurance (and this covers the players' families as well) will be stopped. i know of one player who's daughter requires several operations, some of which will have to take place past March 4, and that will not be covered. (the player wasn't looking for sympathy, and i approached him about writing the story, but he declined because he didn't want to have his daughter thrust in the middle of this).

 

jw (proud member of the blind sheep media)

what is "absurd" is that supposed a quality jounralist as yourself won't report anything but the union sponsored "lockout" scenario.

 

1. of course the NFL has made plans if there is no deal by March 3. Contrary to your opinion, there is a strong possibility that those plans include something other than a lockout initiated by the owners. There may be a work stoppage (for which the league is better prepared than the players), but it will have to be initiated by the players.

 

2.of course the players like the current deal. Too bad for them the CBA and its favorable terms expire on March 3.

 

3. The owners do not have to lock out the players to continue the league.

 

a. One highly probable scenario is that the owners will bargain up to March 3 and declare they are at an impasse with the Union. Won't be hard to make that argument since the NFLPA is more concerned with lobbying through hte media than coming to the table to negotiate.

 

b. The owners can then impose their last proposal as the new rules to apply after March 3. Those rules will likely include rookie wage scale, 18 game schedule and other items under the current CBA. Any and all players will be invited to play under the new rules.

 

c. By providing new rules. the league would continue medical care for those agreeing to play under the new rules, thus defusing one of the union's most hyped issues.

 

d. The owners would also neutralize the entire NFLPA media propaganda program of blaming the league for any work stoppage. This perception will weigh heavily when the NFLPA lobbies the courts and Congress for help in its anti-trust litigation campaign.

 

4. of course, the NFLPA has plans as well. Unfortunately, they have been formulated by a high profile litigator

 

a. The NFLPA will then attempt to de-certify. This is the union's entire gameplan - but there is a real strong possibility that the court throws out the de-certification as a sham. Although it worked last, the last time also provided a clear blue print of the union not disbanding and still effectively working to represent the players. If the union loses this case, it is game over.

 

b. Let's assume they can de-certify. Now the individual players have to decide whether to accept the league's new operating rules and play under their contracts. If not, they can individually break their contracts and collectively (without NFLPA support) try to force a work stoppage.

 

You are correct, they all agreed to de-certify in early 2010 while still playing. Agreeing to some future legal mumbo jumbo is hardly proof of solidarity. Even a crack journalist should be able to conclude that the dynamics will be much different when individual players have to decide to miss game checks for a continuing period of time. Solidarity is much harder to come by when the player is the one taking money out of his pocket. History has proven that any player induced work stoppage won't last very long.

 

It would seem that players due roster bonuses would be able to collect, although the owners could impose contractual consequences as part of agreeing to play under the new rules.

 

c. Even if some players strike, the league can still play with whoever shows and hire replacement players. If games are played, I would guess that that the TV revenues that need to be repaid would be greatly reduced, thus putting the owners in a much better position that the striking players.

 

d. Some players (again without support from the NFLPA) will then also sue the NFL for anti-trust violations for various restraint of trade items such as the college draft and free agency. The NFL may be optimistic based on recent rulings that their downside is limited in court.

 

5. The owners could conceivably try the above and still lock out the players at a later date. Most of the players will not feel any big impact until they start missing game checks.

 

The owners may in fact lock-out the players.

 

It would just be refreshing if the mainstream media actually acknowledged the possibility of another option.

 

 

[Delete This Account]

John W, Could you tell me what pieces Goodell needs to pick up left over from the Taglibue deal? The owners are, in general, doing extremely well in a very inhospitable economic environment? The owners could have very comfortably waited for this deal to expire before laying down the hammer on the players. They didn't because they felt that now was a propitious time to use their dominant leverage.

 

There is a strong under current going on here that many people are not acknowledging. The business model has changed. The owners are now being forced to build their own palaces with little public money. Those who have been forced to take the financial plunge of paying off their own stadium bonds want to keep more of their internal stadium revenue. Old guard owners such as Wilson, Brown, Davis are being outmuscled by the new generation of owners such as Kraft, Snyder and Jerry Jones who have put their own ducats on the line.

 

It doesn't sit well with Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder that they are scrambling to maximize their revenue in-take while the slackers and whiners like Ralph want a bigger cut of the revenue from the actual risk takers. You don't think that they are a bit perturbed when they see a shyster owner such as Wilson pocket the shared money and then for almost a generation not bother to put out a respectable product in a system disigned for parity? You don't think that Snyder isn't irritated that the baron owner of the Bills complains about money, yet still refuses to sell the naming rights to his narcissticly named Ralph Wilson Stadium? Dan Snyder snapped at Ralph at an ownership meeting when the owner went into one of his tiresome mantras how he could not financially keep up? The young owner asked the elderly owner why he was leaving money on the table by not selling the naming rights to the stadium he controls. Ralph's nonsensical response was that is the way he wants it.

 

The basic point I'm making is that there is as much of a struggle going on between the more entreprenual owners and the old guard owners, who have richly benefited from the old wealth transferring system.

 

 

 

The NHL and NFL management/labor situations are far from being comparable. The NHL had to build a new business model because the old model resulted in a collapse of the system. As it stood it was not viable. There had to be changes for the league to survive. With respect to the NFL the $$$ pot is enormous. It comes down to how to share the pot. What the owners have to realize is that having the muscle shouldn't cloud them into doing what is right and reasonable. Compromising is more often a sign of strength, not weakness.

i strongly disagree with the term "shyster." and i won't get dragged into yet another discussion in regards to Mr. Wilson. i've made my comments in regards to Mr. Wilson on far too many numerous occasions, so please look them up for reference.

 

the economic model has changed because numerous owners have opted (not forced) to build extravagant palaces, which have proven costly. and some have attempted to squeeze the public for more money by forcing upon them high-priced licensing fees. when the new cba was struck, the owners were put in a desperate position of agreeing to a bad deal or risking a labor dispute, apparently without realizing that by building such new palaces they were, by themselves, driving up the salary cap, thus forcing them to spend more money on player salaries. and yet, they compounded their problem by providing players a higher share of revenues than in the previous deal.

 

couple that with the economic downturn that apparently no one saw coming (bubble bursting, how can that be?), and the NFL has put itself in a risky position in which there have been fewer sellouts and fewer people attending games. suddenly, and curiously, more teams adopted the Bills cash-to-the-cap model. suddenly, and curiously, there weren't many high-priced free agents signed during an uncapped year. suddenly, the NFL was put into a position where it was forced to slash payroll at HQ. suddenly, NFL teams cut pensions for their coaches.

 

this is not to say that the NFL is in economic jeopardy, but it is suddenly facing problems similar to that of other major league sports.

 

and i think you miss my point on the NFL-NHL comparison. the NHL didn't reach a new deal until it stood its ground against the union and went ahead with a lockout. Jeffrey Pasch, the lawyer who worked with the NHL and is now working with the NFL, is regarded as a leading labor negotiator, who is credited with guiding the NHL through the lockout and earning the league what's regarded as a one-sided victory. the NFL has reached a crossroads as well here, seeking a transformative deal and risking a lockout in order to get it.

 

and the two negotiations in fact are comparable. the NHL wanted a salary cap and got one. the NFL no longer has a salary cap but wants cost certainty (ie: a new cap formula). as in 2004, NHL owners were well prepared and more than willing to risk losing an entire season to get their way. the NFL owners, i strongly believe, are prepared to take the same position.

yes, compromise would work, but there is too much at stake -- the NFLPA needs a win to hold its ground, the NFL needs a win because the past deal was flawed -- to go that route.

right and reasonable are not part of this equation. pension funds, tv rights, new stadiums, free agency, a rookie salary cap, an 18-game schedule: there's a lot of money at stake here, and it'll depend -- as it did with the NHL lockout -- on which side blinking first. i believe the stage is set for a repeat of that lockout unless De Smith can somehow come away with a face-saving win on one of the key fronts, which will more than likely come down to the 18-game schedule and reducing the number of required games it takes for an NFL player to be vested, and receive health insurance.

 

i don't know how far the NFL is willing to go on that. or when that issue will be settled.

 

jw

[Delete This Account]

what is "absurd" is that supposed a quality jounralist as yourself won't report anything but the union sponsored "lockout" scenario.

 

1. of course the NFL has made plans if there is no deal by March 3. Contrary to your opinion, there is a strong possibility that those plans include something other than a lockout initiated by the owners. There may be a work stoppage (for which the league is better prepared than the players), but it will have to be initiated by the players.

 

2.of course the players like the current deal. Too bad for them the CBA and its favorable terms expire on March 3.

 

3. The owners do not have to lock out the players to continue the league.

 

a. One highly probable scenario is that the owners will bargain up to March 3 and declare they are at an impasse with the Union. Won't be hard to make that argument since the NFLPA is more concerned with lobbying through hte media than coming to the table to negotiate.

 

b. The owners can then impose their last proposal as the new rules to apply after March 3. Those rules will likely include rookie wage scale, 18 game schedule and other items under the current CBA. Any and all players will be invited to play under the new rules.

 

c. By providing new rules. the league would continue medical care for those agreeing to play under the new rules, thus defusing one of the union's most hyped issues.

 

d. The owners would also neutralize the entire NFLPA media propaganda program of blaming the league for any work stoppage. This perception will weigh heavily when the NFLPA lobbies the courts and Congress for help in its anti-trust litigation campaign.

 

4. of course, the NFLPA has plans as well. Unfortunately, they have been formulated by a high profile litigator

 

a. The NFLPA will then attempt to de-certify. This is the union's entire gameplan - but there is a real strong possibility that the court throws out the de-certification as a sham. Although it worked last, the last time also provided a clear blue print of the union not disbanding and still effectively working to represent the players. If the union loses this case, it is game over.

 

b. Let's assume they can de-certify. Now the individual players have to decide whether to accept the league's new operating rules and play under their contracts. If not, they can individually break their contracts and collectively (without NFLPA support) try to force a work stoppage.

 

You are correct, they all agreed to de-certify in early 2010 while still playing. Agreeing to some future legal mumbo jumbo is hardly proof of solidarity. Even a crack journalist should be able to conclude that the dynamics will be much different when individual players have to decide to miss game checks for a continuing period of time. Solidarity is much harder to come by when the player is the one taking money out of his pocket. History has proven that any player induced work stoppage won't last very long.

 

It would seem that players due roster bonuses would be able to collect, although the owners could impose contractual consequences as part of agreeing to play under the new rules.

 

c. Even if some players strike, the league can still play with whoever shows and hire replacement players. If games are played, I would guess that that the TV revenues that need to be repaid would be greatly reduced, thus putting the owners in a much better position that the striking players.

 

d. Some players (again without support from the NFLPA) will then also sue the NFL for anti-trust violations for various restraint of trade items such as the college draft and free agency. The NFL may be optimistic based on recent rulings that their downside is limited in court.

 

5. The owners could conceivably try the above and still lock out the players at a later date. Most of the players will not feel any big impact until they start missing game checks.

 

The owners may in fact lock-out the players.

 

It would just be refreshing if the mainstream media actually acknowledged the possibility of another option.

that's a dicey proposition you're making, frought with numerous landmines. the NFL would risk opening itself up to further lawsuits and congressional insight, the latter of which would open a big can of worms. some NFL owners are already unhappy with Chuck Schumer pushing the ball on revenue sharing in regards to the Bills, and i think Schumer will be pushing that ball further as a new CBA is reached.

also keep in mind, Smith has a friend at the White House, as he previously worked with AG Eric Holder.

 

the idea of replacement players also isn't attractive. though a curiosity the last time it happened, it didn't last long and eventually led to the NFL caving on free agency: a big win for the union.

replacement players was such a bad idea that major league baseball eventually caved to its union, which led immediately to Kevin Brown signing a $122 million contract (and the right to fly family and friends on the Dodgers private jet). a loss for MLB, especially considering the revenue it lost from losing a third of its season and the World Series.

 

the NHL lockout proved that the league can win by standing firmly together, and it led to the eventual dissolution of the NHLPA, which may finally be regaining a sense of relevance under its third -- or is it fourth, i've lost track -- leader on Donald Fehr.

 

and your scenario has been written about and may gain traction in the coming weeks, which is why there are more questions about there being a "Go" and "No-Go" date.

but you seem to place all the risk on the players, and believe they will be the ones who break. though possible, NFL owners have no track history of holding together either, and there is a fear that the smaller market teams could get trampled in the outcome. there's plenty of pressure on Goodell to keep his side in check as well.

 

it's not as cut-and-dried as you present it. my money's still on an nfl-imposed lockout.

 

jw

 

and really, why in every post do you make it so freaking personal, in that you come off to be so godam high and mighty that leads me to wonder why you don't have a job in this business. or are all of us stupid reporters simply beneath you. jeezus, you're an arrogant, pompous know it all, who makes it difficult to allow me to reply respectfully or without holding my nose.

Edited February 5, 2011 by john wawrow

[Kkspike]

I think it's about time to let cromartie speak he has some good ideas.

[cåblelady]

it's not as cut-and-dried as you present it. my money's still on an nfl-imposed lockout.

I tend to agree with you. How long has my Company been trying to work out a deal with the NFL to carry the NFL Network?? Don't even get me started. Sigh.

[JohnC]

the economic model has changed because numerous owners have opted (not forced) to build extravagant palaces, which have proven costly. and some have attempted to squeeze the public for more money by forcing upon them high-priced licensing fees. when the new cba was struck, the owners were put in a desperate position of agreeing to a bad deal or risking a labor dispute, apparently without realizing that by building such new palaces they were, by themselves, driving up the salary cap, thus forcing them to spend more money on player salaries. and yet, they compounded their problem by providing players a higher share of revenues than in the previous deal.

 

What you are basically saying is that it is the owners (aggressive entrepreneurs) who miscalculated. Always thinking about the upside and being oblivious about the downside. It is like moving up for the bigger house without considering periods of the downside. Now they are feeling the squeeze (or least some owners-not Ralph) and they want others to pay for their miscalculation.

 

couple that with the economic downturn that apparently no one saw coming (bubble bursting, how can that be?), and the NFL has put itself in a risky position in which there have been fewer sellouts and fewer people attending games. suddenly, and curiously, more teams adopted the Bills cash-to-the-cap model. suddenly, and curiously, there weren't many high-priced free agents signed during an uncapped year.

 

From a player's perspective this lack of pursuit of free agency could also be categorized as collusion. On the one hand you are pointing out that some franchises are drawn to the cash to cap model yet some other high rollers are gorging on the free glitzy agent product. There is a simple solution: run the business in a more fiscal responsible manner. Even Dan Snyder under Shanahan is changing the franchise's approach away from expensive free agent acquisitions to a more cost effective approach. In other words they are being more disciplined.

 

this is not to say that the NFL is in economic jeopardy, but it is suddenly facing problems similar to that of other major league sports.

 

That is my point. The new paradigm could have waited for this current deal to expire. In the interim the owners could have shown more salary discretion on their rosters. You nailed the nexus of this issue. Some of the big boys over-reached. Now they want to alter a labor agreement that is reasonably working. If the current CBA is so imperiling then there is a simple solution------open your books and prove it. They are not going to do it because what the books would show would undercut their claims.

 

and i think you miss my point on the NFL-NHL comparison. the NHL didn't reach a new deal until it stood its ground against the union and went ahead with a lockout. Jeffrey Pasch, the lawyer who worked with the NHL and is now working with the NFL, is regarded as a leading labor negotiator, who is credited with guiding the NHL through the lockout and earning the league what's regarded as a one-sided victory. the NFL has reached a crossroads as well here, seeking a transformative deal and risking a lockout in order to get it.

 

I respectfully make the point that you are missing the difference between the NHL and NFL situation. The NHL had an existential issue. The league couldn't possibly survive under the labor agreement they had. That is far different from the NFL scenario. I'm aware that the NFL is under some furture financial duress. But the current deal could have remained without stressing the system.

 

and the two negotiations in fact are comparable. the NHL wanted a salary cap and got one. the NFL no longer has a salary cap but wants cost certainty (ie: a new cap formula). as in 2004, NHL owners were well prepared and more than willing to risk losing an entire season to get their way. the NFL owners, i strongly believe, are prepared to take the same position.

 

I have absolutely no doubt that the owners are going to fight to the bitter end. Even if in the long run it damages them. Review the baseball labor history. It took years to recover from that fiasco. Excessive ownership hubris can inflict damage to the person in the mirror.

 

The owners are certainly making more money now than in 2004. Of course they want a new cap formula. There is no doubt about that. They want more. It's called greed. The point I'm underscoring is that the current deal could have sufficed until it expired. The owners (in genral) believe that they now have a very strong hand and they are going to use it.

 

i don't know how far the NFL is willing to go on that. or when that issue will be settled.

 

jw

 

Don't be too surprised when a consensus develops with the attitude of: Who Cares? I'll find other avenues of cheaper entertainment.

Edited February 5, 2011 by JohnC

[Doc]

What you are basically saying is that it is the owners (aggressive entrepreneurs) who miscalculated. Always thinking about the upside and being oblivious about the downside. It is like moving up for the bigger house without considering periods of the downside. Now they are feeling the squeeze (or least some owners-not Ralph) and they want others to pay for their miscalculation.

They got greedy and figured people would pay more and more to watch the games at the stadium, while they kept more unshared revenue. While the old stadiums were fine and much cheaper. They have no one to blame but themselves. But hey, this is America! We can't go blaming ourselves for our mistakes/misfortunes and have to blame someone else.

[dave mcbride]

Nope, you are correct. I'm on "the owner's side". So what? Those "pricks" you mention are also the ones who produce the football product (along with the owners of the Giants, Jets, Packers*, Steelers and Bears) that the networks are really paying (billions) for. It may surprise you that the networks aren't paying for the rights to broadcast Bills, Seahawks, Panthers, Titans, etc...games. They negotiated those huge contracts on behalf of guys like Ralph and they did a very nice job, you would have to agree. They make football for us--it's simple. What can I say?

 

 

 

Actually it's neither yet, right? I know you knew that.

 

 

 

Yes, I am siding with the guys who have made out like bandits over the course of this completely imaginary "bending over" (that's an interesting way to describe making hundreds of millions of dollars) period, just so I can get back at Ralph, who was so incredibly tuned into the CBA process that he forgot how it would provide him unprecedented extra free league welfare should his profits fall below 30 million.

 

Maybe if you repeat the "bent over" claim enough, it will seem to be true.

I disagree and agree with you. The owners don't make the game; the players and the nature of the game itself do. If the NFL went out of business tomorrow, college football would do just fine. Simply put, the owners are lucky to be as successful as they are because they're lucky to be in charge of a sport that's so damn entertaining and in which every game matters (and they'll matter slightly less with an 18 game season).

 

I agree with you in your contention that the notion that the owners got screwed last time around is a complete joke. *Of course* the teams are huge cash cows, and of course the teams are profitable. Whether the players (the entertainment at the end of the day, which is what matters) make 59 percent of 54 percent doesn't undercut the fact that regardless, everyone's making money.

[Mr. WEO]

that's a dicey proposition you're making, frought with numerous landmines. the NFL would risk opening itself up to further lawsuits and congressional insight, the latter of which would open a big can of worms. some NFL owners are already unhappy with Chuck Schumer pushing the ball on revenue sharing in regards to the Bills, and i think Schumer will be pushing that ball further as a new CBA is reached.

also keep in mind, Smith has a friend at the White House, as he previously worked with AG Eric Holder.

 

the idea of replacement players also isn't attractive. though a curiosity the last time it happened, it didn't last long and eventually led to the NFL caving on free agency: a big win for the union.

replacement players was such a bad idea that major league baseball eventually caved to its union, which led immediately to Kevin Brown signing a $122 million contract (and the right to fly family and friends on the Dodgers private jet). a loss for MLB, especially considering the revenue it lost from losing a third of its season and the World Series.

 

the NHL lockout proved that the league can win by standing firmly together, and it led to the eventual dissolution of the NHLPA, which may finally be regaining a sense of relevance under its third -- or is it fourth, i've lost track -- leader on Donald Fehr.

 

and your scenario has been written about and may gain traction in the coming weeks, which is why there are more questions about there being a "Go" and "No-Go" date.

but you seem to place all the risk on the players, and believe they will be the ones who break. though possible, NFL owners have no track history of holding together either, and there is a fear that the smaller market teams could get trampled in the outcome. there's plenty of pressure on Goodell to keep his side in check as well.

 

it's not as cut-and-dried as you present it. my money's still on an nfl-imposed lockout.

 

jw

Spartacus is right. As others have said--the players can't continue under the current deal (no doubt they like it) because it disappears in March. The owners will make a final offer after the CBA expires. The players will either accept and show up for work or they can decertify and strike. Why lock them out?

 

Chuck Schumer and Ralph can agitate about revenue all they want, but if they read the current CBA, they will see it included a massive increase in revenue sharing for "low revenue" (not low profit) teams. The US AG has no power to help the players here. That's a dream.

 

Jones was not "pushing for the CBA"--he was actually a holdout because of the increase in revenue sharing. He didn't see why he had to line Ralph's pockets when he was dropping $600 million + on his Xanadu and Ralph still had his fans pissing in troughs.

 

The player who's child needs surgery cannot lose his group health insurance-federal COBRA laws require that he be allowed to keep the exact same plan for up to 18 months after they are terminated from job. He would have to pay the entire premium, which he can certainly afford. Or he can purchase any other insurance plan. No need for him or his family to go without insured health care.

 

You should have asked him about that.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[Kelly the Dog]

I disagree and agree with you. The owners don't make the game; the players and the nature of the game itself do. If the NFL went out of business tomorrow, college football would do just fine. Simply put, the owners are lucky to be as successful as they are because they're lucky to be in charge of a sport that's so damn entertaining and in which every game matters (and they'll matter slightly less with an 18 game season).

 

I agree with you in your contention that the notion that the owners got screwed last time around is a complete joke. *Of course* the teams are huge cash cows, and of course the teams are profitable. Whether the players (the entertainment at the end of the day, which is what matters) make 59 percent of 54 percent doesn't undercut the fact that regardless, everyone's making money.

If these owners werent around there would be 32 other rich white guys lining up at the door to lay down 800 million dollars they know they cannot lose. If these players didnt exist, you would have replacement players and crappy pro football.

[CosmicBills]

If these owners werent around there would be 32 other rich white guys lining up at the door to lay down 800 million dollars they know they cannot lose. If these players didnt exist, you would have replacement players and crappy pro football.

This.

 

And thank you to JW for continuing to enlighten us all about the media's view of the situation (as well as your own informed views). Seriously, it helps because this whole issue is a giant clusterf&*k and it's so easy to get confused by all the hype on both sides. End of the day, the owners are the ones deciding NOT to let the players play because they want a new deal. That's their right to do as owners. But saying this is going to be anything but a lockout is laughable.

[Mr. WEO]

If these owners werent around there would be 32 other rich white guys lining up at the door to lay down 800 million dollars they know they cannot lose. If these players didnt exist, you would have replacement players and crappy pro football.

"Crappy pro football", huh? Lord knows we wouldn't tolerate that.

 

Anyway, pro football players are continuously being minted at a hundred colleges across the country every single year. An endless supply.

[Kelly the Dog]

"Crappy pro football", huh? Lord knows we wouldn't tolerate that.

 

Anyway, pro football players are continuously being minted at a hundred colleges across the country every single year. An endless supply.

Yeah, the USFL and CFL and Arena Football are awesome. There is no question the networks would pay billions to give us the privilege of watching that.

[JohnC]

They got greedy and figured people would pay more and more to watch the games at the stadium, while they kept more unshared revenue. While the old stadiums were fine and much cheaper. They have no one to blame but themselves. But hey, this is America! We can't go blaming ourselves for our mistakes/misfortunes and have to blame someone else.

 

There is a simple solution. If the owners are so financially strapped then open up the books to a neutral party to prove that they are really in a financial bind. That is not going to happen because it would prove otherwise.

[Bufcomments]

You guys remember how it felt when the Sabres lost the season to the strike??

 

I think you better DVR the Super Bowl...might be a strike short season....

 

I listened to both pressers during the week and I personally don't have a good feeling about this. Hope we don't have scab games like in 87? , think that was the year.

 

When I heard the union rep say the owners hired the guy who led the NHL strike for the NHL owners that is clearly not a good sign.

 

My guess is no preseason and games starting late. They will not lose the season because there is to much money involved.

 

I would like to see the NFLPA and the Owners go someplace warm, drink all they want,lock them selfs in a big ass Room and ...

 

 

GET ER DONE...

[CosmicBills]

You guys remember how it felt when the Sabres lost the season to the strike??

 

I think you better DVR the Super Bowl...might be a strike short season....

 

I listened to both pressers during the week and I personally don't have a good feeling about this. Hope we don't have scab games like in 87? , think that was the year.

 

When I heard the union rep say the owners hired the guy who led the NHL strike for the NHL owners that is clearly not a good sign.

 

My guess is no preseason and games starting late. They will not lose the season because there is to much money involved.

 

I would like to see the NFLPA and the Owners go someplace warm, drink all they want,lock them selfs in a big ass Room and ...

 

 

GET ER DONE...

I don't think there's much of a chance that there'll be a season at all in '11.

 

The NFL thinks it's untouchable. But so did Baseball. And the NBA. People forget how popular the NBA was before their last strike. Even with the star power found in today's NBA, it's half as popular as it was before the strike. MLB managed to recover, but it took time and some would say it's not ever going to be what it once was. The NFL would be foolish to think they can't fall victims to similar fates. A prolonged lockout will have an impact on the league. Bigger than most realize.

 

The only hope for football in '11 is if both sides come to their senses and realize that they are, in fact, not untouchable. This league is the golden goose right now. But a canceled '11 season could be the axe.

[Mr. WEO]

Yeah, the USFL and CFL and Arena Football are awesome. There is no question the networks would pay billions to give us the privilege of watching that.

There are plenty of crappy NFL teams. No one seems to mind.

 

 

Next season's games are paid for. What's your point there?