Anyone think the NFLPA messed up?

[NoSaint]

 

The players have been getting a progressively larger share of the pie. One of the reasons for that is because, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, neither the players nor the owners of many big market teams really like the idea of a salary cap. The owners of high revenue teams want to be able to outspend their low revenue counterparts!

 

The fact that the owners weren't united with each other in the past is why things got as out of hand as they have, and is why the players have gotten too big for their britches. In a down economy with bills coming due, the owners have clearly realized they messed up during the last CBA, and that it's time to reclaim some of the ground they surrendered. It's necessary for the owners to do exactly that, but it's not going to be a quick or painless process.

 

Honestly one of the best posts I've seen on the subject.

[Dragonborn10]

First off by law once a company says they cannot afford something, reference it, or imply it they have to show them the books. It is a matter law of National Labor Relations Board. If every business in the midst of labor was taken at face value because they said they couldn't afford anything there would be no economic impact on a union negotiating wages and benefits. It would be a futile effort. Every business owner has that "F the employees and their demands" attituded when it comes to a negotiating and they are entitled to that sentiment to a point but this NFL vs NFLPA is a totally differnt scenario. They are not demanding more money for their pockets; they are fighting for better health coverage into retirement. Say you are a construction worker and you fall off scaffolding and break your back. Your care for that injury and all expenses related to it are covered by that employer's compensation insurance. It is not so for NFL players after their career in a highly physical field. They are responsible for it forever.

 

What makes absolutely no sense to me is the decert of the union. As far as I know, from my experience as a union president in the state of NY, once a group decerifies it's union in an open period (during negotiations or 2 yrs after ratification of a CBA)it must remain without a union for at least one year. The latest move by the NFLPA is mind boggling. There is nothing compeling the owners to come to the table, they can lock them, hell there is no CBA in place so they could strike. When negotiating a No Strike/No Lockout clause goes hand in hand. Both parties agree to do neither. And, to boot, they would not be able to seek representation for a year unless the owner. Technically they could say...Screw it we are having an 18 game season, we are not going to honor any contracta with players (barring any MOU, agreement or contract exceeds the CBA) They can't just implement an 18 game season because they wanted to over the last 5 years because it is a change to working conditions, also negated by labor law.

 

I am baffled here, they ALL stand to lose a lot of money due to a lock out or strike.

You are correct about the time constraints with regard to reforming the union. It was years after the last decertification I think almost 7(1987-1994) before they reformed.

 

Do you think the TV money would be there if not for the massive fan base? You, sir, are a moron.

 

 

Of course the TV money is there because of the large fan base. My point is the fans are there now and will be whenever play resumes. We are meaningless mindless drones who overpay for parking, beer, tickets, memorabilia, and satellite TV only to be rewarded with a 4-12 team and no playoffs for a decade. Could the last decade of football in Buffalo be any worse than 6 missing games from the 2011 season? If you are still a Bills fan today as I am (a problem ordained at birth) you will be after the lockout. The owners know that and the players know that.

[rjwii]

The players union class action law suit now includes a college player so they can declare the draft to be in violation of the anti-trust laws. it is clear from the unions actios (decertifying with 6 hours of negotiations left) that they never intended to listen but only bought time for their judge to rule and to get more players on board. They may indeed be the "talent" but without the owners footing the bill and handeling the business end this league would have gone under years ago. Take care of the retired players, give them health coverage that means something. listen to the players when it comes to health and benifits. these are reasonable demands. financials for ten years is merly a demand made so that it could be rejected.

 

a radical solution to the lockout would be for the owners to release all of the players...negotiate with them on a one on one basis...and rebuild the league. if they don't think that they make enough now let them start over from scratch.

 

hey it's an idea.

[Spiderweb]

No...but as BillsVet just stated > "The PA's insistence on having team financial records for the past 10 years is unreasonable and nothing the NFL would ever agree to."

Right is right & wrong is wrong...union or not! I just can't side with the players on this issue.

 

Right is right, and while it's simply not be comparable with your stores vs. employees, when you have an agreement, and one side decides to opt out and then demand concessions due to cost, expenses, etc., you can't somehow see that some tangible explanation and evidence of those costs is reasonable and logical?

 

I take a simple view of all this, which is in today's climate, it all about working the employees harder, pay them less, reduce their benefits, all while those in power (control or ownership aka "the rich") take more for themselves, and get huge tax breaks besides. The times are not good for 95% of the USA, and far too many are so stuck on ideologies, they don't even realize the ones that they shooting in the foot are themselves.

 

Why we have become so hell bent on making the ridiculously rich people richer is beyond me, and don't start with the myth that they create jobs. They do however, eliminate or export jobs, all in the name of furthering their own nests. Invest? Real investment is in growing a company, not in buying ownership into other companies. It does however increase ownership. The only constant in the last 35 years in the amazing continued rapidly growing concentration of wealth and ownership by the top 1%. The middle class has and continues to lose ground. Those are facts, not myths. Yet somehow we are led by some Pied Piper into believing giving more to those who already are incredibly well off is going to somehow help us? That's an ultimate act of insanity.

[Mark Vader]

Please stop with this it's about the fans nonsense. The money comes from TV and TV alone. That money comes from huge corporations buying advertising funnelled through Madison Ave. To the NFL, you are a more important fan if you stay home and watch the game instead of showing up at the stadium.

BTW you do realize the owners are billionaires. The minimum wage guy should side with them? Me thinks you are a Tea Bagger.

[Niagara Bill]

Obviously I don't have all the details but from what I read about the NFL's proposal it seemed ok. It seemed to me the league met many of the unions demands and moved to the middle on the money. I understand the union is afraid they are being duped by not having access to all the information they need but the proposal from the NFL included more shared financial information. I suspect there would have been an out clause in the deal they union could have exercised just like the owners did if the deal wasn't working for them a couple years down the road. I think the union believes the courts are going to be more fair than the owners. However our national court system is filled with Bush I and II era appointments and the Supreme Court is decidedly pro-business. I'm not so sure the courts will consistently be on the players side. Maybe this Judge Doty will be but any decision he makes will be appealed higher to courts that are likely much more conservative and pro-owner/anti-union.

The real issue here is the new NFLPA leadersip. They are different than the old group and the style and the vision is different. The fight is about control, not money. Smith wants control and power and the older group wanted fairness and to play the game.

This will not get settled easily. Smith has changed the dynamics and matches the owners now. This is neither good or bad, but because Goodell is a solution type guy he can control the owners and get a deal. Smith does not want a solution at this point in his career. He wants power and control.

I have been in this position many times...the solution must come from the players behind Smith because he does not want a contract solution as I said.

 

Interesting to me that we have 2 parties with one fighting over money and the other fighting for power.

[8-8 Forever?]

totally. the NFL is a monopoly. and it is best run as one. the players have no other league to play in. even if the league is broken up into the old AFL and NFL (let's just say) leagues, it would be many years before the players made the kind of $$ and benefits they have with todays well organized and marketed money machine. the players are just screwing themselves by doing this. the more they mess with the status quo in court and the longer this takes, the more they get hurt. Maybe "He Hate Me" can come out of retirement and play in the new UFL. For $20/hour.

 

Please stop with this it's about the fans nonsense. The money comes from TV and TV alone. That money comes from huge corporations buying advertising funnelled through Madison Ave. To the NFL, you are a more important fan if you stay home and watch the game instead of showing up at the stadium.

BTW you do realize the owners are billionaires. The minimum wage guy should side with them? Me thinks you are a Tea Bagger.

Thanks for the input and, don't get me wrong... but... please finish high school before you post again. This thread was actually adding value to the larger discussion before you posted. Thanks/

[agardin]

Right is right, and while it's simply not be comparable with your stores vs. employees, when you have an agreement, and one side decides to opt out and then demand concessions due to cost, expenses, etc., you can't somehow see that some tangible explanation and evidence of those costs is reasonable and logical?

 

I take a simple view of all this, which is in today's climate, it all about working the employees harder, pay them less, reduce their benefits, all while those in power (control or ownership aka "the rich") take more for themselves, and get huge tax breaks besides. The times are not good for 95% of the USA, and far too many are so stuck on ideologies, they don't even realize the ones that they shooting in the foot are themselves.

 

Why we have become so hell bent on making the ridiculously rich people richer is beyond me, and don't start with the myth that they create jobs. They do however, eliminate or export jobs, all in the name of furthering their own nests. Invest? Real investment is in growing a company, not in buying ownership into other companies. It does however increase ownership. The only constant in the last 35 years in the amazing continued rapidly growing concentration of wealth and ownership by the top 1%. The middle class has and continues to lose ground. Those are facts, not myths. Yet somehow we are led by some Pied Piper into believing giving more to those who already are incredibly well off is going to somehow help us? That's an ultimate act of insanity.

 

Not to get into general economic theory but...You might like this quote on 'trickel down' economic theory- " the less than elegant methaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through the road to the sparrows " John Kenneth Galbriath.

[Nanker]

Obviously I don't have all the details but from what I read about the NFL's proposal it seemed ok. It seemed to me the league met many of the unions demands and moved to the middle on the money. I understand the union is afraid they are being duped by not having access to all the information they need but the proposal from the NFL included more shared financial information. I suspect there would have been an out clause in the deal they union could have exercised just like the owners did if the deal wasn't working for them a couple years down the road. I think the union believes the courts are going to be more fair than the owners. However our national court system is filled with Bush I and II era appointments and the Supreme Court is decidedly pro-business. I'm not so sure the courts will consistently be on the players side. Maybe this Judge Doty will be but any decision he makes will be appealed higher to courts that are likely much more conservative and pro-owner/anti-union.

A laughable assertion.

 

Please stop with this it's about the fans nonsense. The money comes from TV and TV alone. That money comes from huge corporations buying advertising funnelled through Madison Ave. To the NFL, you are a more important fan if you stay home and watch the game instead of showing up at the stadium.

BTW you do realize the owners are billionaires. The minimum wage guy should side with them? Me thinks you are a Tea Bagger.

 

Me thinks you are an a-hole with no understanding of the issues in play and have a tenuous grasp on reality akin to that of Conner's.

 

 

The players have been getting a progressively larger share of the pie. One of the reasons for that is because, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, neither the players nor the owners of many big market teams really like the idea of a salary cap. The owners of high revenue teams want to be able to outspend their low revenue counterparts!

 

The fact that the owners weren't united with each other in the past is why things got as out of hand as they have, and is why the players have gotten too big for their britches. In a down economy with bills coming due, the owners have clearly realized they messed up during the last CBA, and that it's time to reclaim some of the ground they surrendered. It's necessary for the owners to do exactly that, but it's not going to be a quick or painless process.

 

 

+1

The worst thing the League did was to cut the NFLPA in for a percentage of revenues. Ralph and Mike Brown voted against that - were ridiculed in the media at the time, but have been vindicated by the rest of the owners coming to their senses and exercising their contractual prerogative of pulling the plug on the agreement. The Jerruhs and Sneiders didn't care at the time what the agreement was. They saw it as a potential path to being able to outspend the rest of the less-well-heeled teams in the league and ultimately buy a series of championships.

 

Now that this is in the courts I think there's better than a 50% chance of no agreement prior to the start of the season. It'll be interesting to see if the players try to get an injunction to prevent any games from being played. Somehow I don't think that will happen nor hold up. It would be an ironic outcome if the current players never played another NFL game again in their lives and the League continued on with a new set of players from that ever-flowing well of talent that the NCAA provides them.

 

 

[indiragandhi'sthong]

The owners are crying poor because they signed a shoddy deal the last time (remember Ralph's criticism) ... so they want to make a stand. They are asking the players to trust that they are somehow hurting. Sorry, but when you are asking me to take a cut you need to open your books and prove it. It only makes sense ... if you are, then fine we can negotiate some financial relief. I am surprised at the support for the owners on this board ... as if any one of you share their tax bracket and you think they somehow give a damn about you. It is the same as the issues in Wisconsin and Ohio ... regular people taking up for the exceedingly wealthy to strip hard fought rights away from average folk, as if the Koch Brothers and Wall Street are somehow on their side. Yes, it is the union worker making 50,000 that is hurting you, not the top 400 People in this nation that have the wealth of the bottom 155 m. Sorry, for the rant but the greed of the corporate set and the stupidity of the tea party sympathizers make me want to puke in my suit. Go NFLPA!

 

And before anyone says it ... I know most of the players could care less about average fans as well ... but many of them at least struggled sometime in their lives as opposed to the bulk of owners.

[Nanker]

The owners are crying poor because they signed a shoddy deal the last time (remember Ralph's criticism) ... so they want to make a stand. They are asking the players to trust that they are somehow hurting. Sorry, but when you are asking me to take a cut you need to open your books and prove it. It only makes sense ... if you are, then fine we can negotiate some financial relief. I am surprised at the support for the owners on this board ... as if any one of you share their tax bracket and you think they somehow give a damn about you. It is the same as the issues in Wisconsin and Ohio ... regular people taking up for the exceedingly wealthy to strip hard fought rights away from average folk, as if the Koch Brothers and Wall Street are somehow on their side. Yes, it is the union worker making 50,000 that is hurting you, not the top 400 People in this nation that have the wealth of the bottom 155 m. Sorry, for the rant but the greed of the corporate set and the stupidity of the tea party sympathizers make me want to puke in my suit. Go NFLPA!

 

And before anyone says it ... I know most of the players could care less about average fans as well ... but many of them at least struggled sometime in their lives as opposed to the bulk of owners.

 

Take your rant of mindless drivel over to PPP why don't ya?

[bobobonators]

Players seem to have forgotten how badly they got their butts kicked in 87. It is precisely what is going to happen this time around. The owners are going to bust them flat and players will end up with less than last weeks best offer. Contrary to public perception, most NFL players are not wealthy.We see big contract numbers but agents get a piece, union gets some, Bills players pay New York taxes - that hurts, Uncle Sam, etc. Most are living beyond their means like the rest of us. They don't have nearly the staying power we think they might. The players will be back ready to play and sooner rather than later. Yes the NFLPA messed up big time and staying power will be the main reason.

 

I fixed your statement.

 

I think the minimum salary in the NFL in 2010 was something like $325,000. The crappiest player in the league can stay around 3 years and earn roughly 1 million. Assuming the average joe makes 50K a year, it would take Mr. Joe 20 yrs to earn that. We all pay taxes and many of us pay union fees as well. The fact that a player like Jamarcus Russell, after receiving millions before ever playing a snap, has a house in foreclosure is NOT the NFL's problem.

 

Part of the next CBA should include some mandatory financial counseling sessions for all players who score less than a 10 on the wonderlic

[JohnC]

Partners dispute? Seriously? What business is it of the players to know what each individual franchise earns? When the players were offered 50% of that 9 billion money pool and rejected it, this became more than any sort of "dispute."

 

"NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources."

 

BillsVet, The above quote was taken from an ESPN written story. I didn't include the link because the story was very long.

 

[Moderator edit: The link isn't really that long.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737 ]

 

The above quote shows that you have your facts in reverse. The players offered to take 50% of the revenue without any cut outs of revenue before taking a 59% cut. The owners said absolutely not and walked out.

 

As I stated to another poster having a different perspective on this topic is understandable. However, in order to have a productive and respectful discussion it is important to get the facts correct. I'm not making this point to be personaly critical. You are one of the better posters on this board. But your version of what was offered and what was rejected was upside down and inaccurate.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Sisyphean Bills

[MattM]

I don't know enough specifics to give too impassioned an opinion, but a lot of people draw an alliance based on preconceived notions, and go with it. As far as the books, from what I've heard it seems like a PR smokescreen. If they've negotiated a share of revenue stream x, and info regarding revenue stream x is openly available, I don't see how it's any of the player's business what the rest of their financials look like.

 

But regardless of all of this, whoever is right or wrong has little or nothing to do with who has more.

 

I agree with your first statement. Folks need to get it through their heads that since the deal they had was a revenue share deal with certain expenses of the team's coming out ahead of the players' cut, this arrangement is very much more like a players' equity stake than a traditional employer-employee relationship. As such, it's incredibly reasonable for the players to ask to see all of the books of the owners.

 

As for your last statement, never said it did. What I pointed to was a factual situation in which the owners very clearly showed their bad faith, as found by a Reagan appointee to the bench, Judge Doty. Combine that with the large amount of greed as previously evidenced by the owners, including the three I named (the guy who built "Jerrah World", the guy who started charging to attend practices and the guy who seems to want the large market teams to be allowed to become the NFL's version of the Yankees) and voila. Draw your own conclusions from those facts. I have....

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Right is right, and while it's simply not be comparable with your stores vs. employees, when you have an agreement, and one side decides to opt out and then demand concessions due to cost, expenses, etc., you can't somehow see that some tangible explanation and evidence of those costs is reasonable and logical?

 

I take a simple view of all this, which is in today's climate, it all about working the employees harder, pay them less, reduce their benefits, all while those in power (control or ownership aka "the rich") take more for themselves, and get huge tax breaks besides. The times are not good for 95% of the USA, and far too many are so stuck on ideologies, they don't even realize the ones that they shooting in the foot are themselves.

 

Why we have become so hell bent on making the ridiculously rich people richer is beyond me, and don't start with the myth that they create jobs. They do however, eliminate or export jobs, all in the name of furthering their own nests. Invest? Real investment is in growing a company, not in buying ownership into other companies. It does however increase ownership. The only constant in the last 35 years in the amazing continued rapidly growing concentration of wealth and ownership by the top 1%. The middle class has and continues to lose ground. Those are facts, not myths. Yet somehow we are led by some Pied Piper into believing giving more to those who already are incredibly well off is going to somehow help us? That's an ultimate act of insanity.

 

If you want to break it down to simple terms, I'd submit that if we were looking at any business that didn't involve professional sports, the vast majority of sports fans would look at a player who makes big money (relative to your 95 percent number) the way you look at ownership. Show me a guy making $400k per year, rolling up in a Lexus/Mercedes/hummer sporting a rolex---I'd be hard-pressed to see many middle-class people identifying with that lifestyle. In fact, as defined by the current political environment, those guys are wealthy. When you get to a guy like ray Lewis, well, how do you identify with that kind of money?

 

Maybe it's just that in a war of big money v. Bigger money, you see the big money as the underdog.

[Doc]

I don't know if the NFLPA made a mistake. Virtually every court case the NFL has been engaged in and thinks they were going to easily win, went against them. But what is the outcome of a verdict against the NFL in an anti-trust suit?

[Nanker]

I don't know if the NFLPA made a mistake. Virtually every court case the NFL has been engaged in and thinks they were going to easily win, went against them. But what is the outcome of a verdict against the NFL in an anti-trust suit?

 

Good question. Maybe the League disbands, doesn't play games for two years and rebuilds under a new banner with new players that were never members of the NFLPA.

This could get ugly. Doubtful it would be that bad, but Pandora's box has been opened.

 

I wonder how many players realize they might have already cashed the last paycheck they'll ever get from their NFL team.

[indiragandhi'sthong]

Take your rant of mindless drivel over to PPP why don't ya?

Last time I check, freedom of speech still applies in this country, Adolf, or is the tea party taking that away, too. I'll post where I please. We'll try to approach this in a manner closer to a tea-bagger's heart, if there is such a thing. How about the owners crying poor and threatening to lock the fans out of the stadiums that each community in large part has helped to fund. Ralph paid for the stadium and improvements on his own? He gives away the parking there for free as well? He and the other owners have had the public in these 32 cities bent so far over that you could see our collective colons. Let's not even mention merchandising, new uniforms, so the public needs to buy a new jersey and I am supposed to somehow side with these creeps?

 

In addition, the average player's career is so short and their health often negatively impacted for the rest of their lives ... I would try and get a bigger piece of the pie too - or surely not give more away without proof. Dave Duerson of the bears dies with serious brain damage and age 44 ... Robert Edwards of the pats is at an NFL sanctioned event and blows his knee out and is out of the league by age 28. I'll side with those that work and do the heavy lifting everyday of the week.

 

Good question. Maybe the League disbands, doesn't play games for two years and rebuilds under a new banner with new players that were never members of the NFLPA.

This could get ugly. Doubtful it would be that bad, but Pandora's box has been opened.

 

I wonder how many players realize they might have already cashed the last paycheck they'll ever get from their NFL team.

The caption under your avatar says "stupidly excited" ... Well, you're half right!

 

Right is right, and while it's simply not be comparable with your stores vs. employees, when you have an agreement, and one side decides to opt out and then demand concessions due to cost, expenses, etc., you can't somehow see that some tangible explanation and evidence of those costs is reasonable and logical?

 

I take a simple view of all this, which is in today's climate, it all about working the employees harder, pay them less, reduce their benefits, all while those in power (control or ownership aka "the rich") take more for themselves, and get huge tax breaks besides. The times are not good for 95% of the USA, and far too many are so stuck on ideologies, they don't even realize the ones that they shooting in the foot are themselves.

 

Why we have become so hell bent on making the ridiculously rich people richer is beyond me, and don't start with the myth that they create jobs. They do however, eliminate or export jobs, all in the name of furthering their own nests. Invest? Real investment is in growing a company, not in buying ownership into other companies. It does however increase ownership. The only constant in the last 35 years in the amazing continued rapidly growing concentration of wealth and ownership by the top 1%. The middle class has and continues to lose ground. Those are facts, not myths. Yet somehow we are led by some Pied Piper into believing giving more to those who already are incredibly well off is going to somehow help us? That's an ultimate act of insanity.

Love the post ... Keep trying to explain and perhaps some may eventually see past the propaganda.

Edited March 13, 2011 by APUSHMS

[JohnC]

I don't know if the NFLPA made a mistake. Virtually every court case the NFL has been engaged in and thinks they were going to easily win, went against them. But what is the outcome of a verdict against the NFL in an anti-trust suit?

 

You bring up a good point about not knowing the outcome and repercussions of a legal loss for the NFL. Whatever it is doesn't necessarily translate into a victory from an outcome standpoint for the players.

 

The "company line" for the owners is that this matter has to be settled at the negotiating table and not the courtroom. They are absolutely right. My view is coming from a perspective that favors the players more than the owners' perspective.

 

If the players believe that the legal tide is tilting in their favor and that it is in their interest to prolong the battle they are making a big mistake. When it comes to the battle of attrition the owners are in a much stronger position.

 

The mentality of both sides has to change from being right and the other side is wrong to let's make a deal. There are no angels here. With the treacherous TV deal the owners contrived to sign it is understanding why the players don't trust the owners. They have learned that the owners can be cutthroat in their business dealings. If that is a new revelation for them they are very naive.

 

Both sides need to get back to the bargaining table in a quieter setting and hammer out a deal that will not totally satisfy either side. It is in both of their interests to get a deal done sooner rather than later.

[NoSaint]

"NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources."

 

BillsVet, The above quote was taken from an ESPN written story. I didn't include the link because the story was very long.

 

The above quote shows that you have your facts in reverse. The players offered to take 50% of the revenue without any cut outs of revenue before taking a 59% cut. The owners said absolutely not and walked out.

 

As I stated to another poster having a different perspective on this topic is understandable. However, in order to have a productive and respectful discussion it is important to get the facts correct. I'm not making this point to be personaly critical. You are one of the better posters on this board. But your version of what was offered and what was rejected was upside down and inaccurate.

 

You do realize that "cut" would end up be the same or more money any given year? De smith really tried the bridge the gap with that one.