per PFT - point the decertification finger at Jerrah

[Buftex]

Why the heck do you continue to beat the decertification as a shame (ploy maybe, sham not so much), while ignoring the lockout preparations the owners made over years ago in their last TV deals? You sound like a Fox News man.....one sided.

 

 

+1

[JohnC]

i really do despise de smith, and think if you take him out of the equation its very possible that the players and owners would have reached an agreement.

 

Why do you despise Smith? He is aggressively representing his side as the other side is aggressiviely being represented by their attorneys. Do you think the players were upset with Smith when they won their claim against the owners over the illegal TV deal? Smith wasn't hired because he was a wallflower. He was hired because he was a very competent attorney and strong personality.

 

Whether you are more pro owners than players the best outcome to happen in the near term is for the Judge to overturn the owners' lockout and get the players and teams back to preparing for the season. Once that is done with the next scheduled judicial ruling the parties will get back to the table and work out a deal.

 

You might be surprised to know that a framework for an agreement has been established. Now it is at a point where both sides are tryig to extract a little more to get a more favorable deal.

 

From a Buffalo Bills fan standpoint what is going on with the owners/players CBA squabble is actually a sidebar issue. The existential issue for Buffalo is how the agreed upon revenue pie is shared among the owners. Let me tell you something that you probably already know. Jerry Jones, Danny Snyder and Robert Kraft don't give a dam about the pauper Bills. What they want is a MLB system where the big boys such as Yankees and Red Sox keep the brunt of the revenue and the little boy franchises go by the wayside.

[Mr. WEO]

Why the heck do you continue to beat the decertification as a shame (ploy maybe, sham not so much), while ignoring the lockout preparations the owners made over years ago in their last TV deals? You sound like a Fox News man.....one sided.

It's a sham becuase as soon as football resumes, the NFLPA will reappear. It only went away so a suit could go forward--hence, a sham.

[BuffaloBill]

Other than time warp places like Buffalo with its $40 ticket prices, the NFL has already been ruined for the average family. That ship sailed many years ago. Where the heck have you been? Football is a great TV game, I just watch on TV. Too many drunken 20-something animals in the stadium these days. If you pay $100 for a ticket, you are making it Mardi Gras. In Buffalo, its Mardi Gras with a $40 ticket. Well, actually Animal House. Which is fine, but I'm not 25 anymore. And I have to have a brain on Monday morning, unlike most NFL stadium goers (especially in Buffalo).

 

No kidding that it is a great TV game - I've had the NFL Sunday Ticket for years.

 

However, football is also a great spectator sport. I get that watching 20 somethings behave poorly ruins this aspect of the game but the NFL could do more to control this. I still remember the first game my grandfather took me to (in what was then called Rich Stadium). The gameday experince cemented my Bills loyalty for life.

[JohnC]

It's a sham becuase as soon as football resumes, the NFLPA will reappear. It only went away so a suit could go forward--hence, a sham.

 

What you call a sham another person might call a tactic. If it worked before then why wouldn't you want to go back to the same well to draw your water. Is the de-certification sham any more of a sham than the fraudulent TV deal the owners contrived to replenish their coffers for lockout preparations?

 

You got two sides who are going to use whatever trick they can to get a bigger slice of the the revenue pie. A lot of money is at stake and a lot of ego is mixed in to make the battle more combustible. Eventually both sides are going to be sitting at the table shaking hands and signing a deal. In the end the customers will bear the costs.

Edited March 16, 2011 by JohnC

[FightClub]

Saw this and wanted to offer this up to the masses on the board....

 

My sentiments have changed as to who to blame for this mess and was last on the players for decertifying and walking away. But after reading this and recallign the mess that the idiot in Charlotte started by belittling Manning and Brees and the players...then seeing Jerrah do this...I would have told them to F off too...

 

 

jerk in Dallas

 

Yeah...I meet with guys like Jerry Jones twice a week. They're abrasive, jerks, and generally a*holes. But if you are sending people into the room who can't handle it, you've lost before you started. That's exactly what they wanted. I'd be amazed if Drew Brees can take a pounding and verbal abuse from 300 pound men 16 times a year and can't take getting flipped off once by Jerry Jones. Shows sometimes the physical stuff isn't what defines a true man in today's culture...

[NoSaint]

Why do you despise Smith? He is aggressively representing his side as the other side is aggressiviely being represented by their attorneys. Do you think the players were upset with Smith when they won their claim against the owners over the illegal TV deal? Smith wasn't hired because he was a wallflower. He was hired because he was a very competent attorney and strong personality.

 

Whether you are more pro owners than players the best outcome to happen in the near term is for the Judge to overturn the owners' lockout and get the players and teams back to preparing for the season. Once that is done with the next scheduled judicial ruling the parties will get back to the table and work out a deal.

 

You might be surprised to know that a framework for an agreement has been established. Now it is at a point where both sides are tryig to extract a little more to get a more favorable deal.

 

From a Buffalo Bills fan standpoint what is going on with the owners/players CBA squabble is actually a sidebar issue. The existential issue for Buffalo is how the agreed upon revenue pie is shared among the owners. Let me tell you something that you probably already know. Jerry Jones, Danny Snyder and Robert Kraft don't give a dam about the pauper Bills. What they want is a MLB system where the big boys such as Yankees and Red Sox keep the brunt of the revenue and the little boy franchises go by the wayside.

 

dont worry, i dont like jerry jones and dan snyder much more than i do smith.

 

maybe its just me but there have been enough things that ive seen out of smith that are grandstanding or even outright lying that i really think hes holding things up. where as i think the players and owners are negotiating money, i think de smith is negotiating his own power in a sense. i think a dollar to dollar negotiation would be done by now, i think when you get someone like smith at a high high level pulling in a sideways direction you get jammed up like we are now. forcing this into courts, a lockout, a decertification all hurt the owners and players a lot more than it hurts him.

[Calgary_JG]

Siding with either group is a hard pill to swallow but I can't in any way, shape or form side with the owners. Greedy, selfish and arrogant. I wish the govt would step in and stop allowing the NFL to have special rules for how it deals with players that most other business don't. They get to act like one league but then owners in big markets whine about helping small markets. You can't have it both ways. And save your "draped in the flag" FoxNews rhetoric about how this is American and freedoma and liberty shall prevail and business should have no regulations. That's fine if you believe that but as soon as you take a nickel or taxpayer dollars to help finance anything you should prove the need. Open your books Jerry Jones and show the taxpayers of Dallas why you "needed" $300M in PUBLIC tax dollars to help with your stadium financing? What other bank doesn't require financial statements be provided when seeking loans or breaks? None. So why is the NFl exempt when they're taking our money.... that include RW.

 

The bottomline is, Jones and the other highly debted teams WANT, not need, WANT, more profit because they're so in debt from stadium financing. Making it worse, they build new stadiums on taxpayer dollars to sell highly priced suites to businesses who right them off as expenses on their taxes and the government loses out there as well.

 

Any suggestion that the owners are the ones gambling and taking the risk and therefore should be rewarded as such is BS. Risk is spending every last nickel YOU have to build a stadium. Risk is pushing all YOUR chips to the center and building something from scratch. Risk is not using taxpayer dollars to increase your profit because you don't want to spend your own money to support your own business.

 

What the NFL is engaged in is corporate welfare. It's socialized debt for privatized profit. But its America and private business is allowed to do that in the name of freedom, liberty and the flag but any redistribution of money to individuals is socialism.

 

What's next, the Republican National Committee charging for the rights to broadcast its presidential nomination debates as a means to get the party out of campaign debt. That would never happen, the RNC is the fiscal powerhouse in this country, they don't run into debt, in fact, they know all the ways to stay out of debt and make profit. And because they're such principled individuals, they'd pay off their own debt, right? And those seeking office would want to get their message out to people by using network television as a means to freely broadcast to the most people possible because it's their obligation to explain to us why they should be elected and the onus and incentive is on them to tell us, not the obligation of us to pay them to tell us though our cable bills.

 

Stupid. This country is dumber by the day.

 

The points you make aren't bad but I don't see how they connect to the current issue with the players. Any thought that the owners are trying line their pockets with more of the players' money is ludicrous, all they want is for the players to share in some of the cost of running the league. They aren't doing that by cutting pay to that genius Adrian Peterson (who apparently plays for free with a gun to his head) or anybody else, they're trying to grow the league and are only asking the players to partner with them so everybody can get richer.

 

I've been involved in a lot of business structuring arrangements in my career and NEVER have I ever seen a partnership where one partner insists on getting his guaranteed cut of the REVENUE before any costs are factored in. These whiner players are basically saying "we don't care about your costs to run this business, we don't care if you all just up and went bankrupt, gimme my money first!" People say the owners are so rich so they can afford to pay some of the costs of the NFL out of their own pockets - this is a stupidly ridiculous argument. I say if you want to bring in the owners' other businesses then every endorsement deal ever signed by a player should be thrown into the pot.

 

Face it, neither side deserves any sympathy but from a rational perspective the owners are just doing what they can to operate their businesses. Consider this, if a team were at the cap maximum in 2009, the average salary would work out to $2.4 million per player. The salary minimum that year was $111 million (86.4% of the cap) or $2.1 million per player.

 

In 2005, the average American earned $28,000 per year. In other words, to earn the average NFL salary, assuming no team paid above the minimum, the average American would have to work 75 years. Or put another way, if the average NFL player has a career span of 3 years, he earns the same amount as if he had a career span of 225 years for an average income earner.

 

The players should stop their whining, shut their mouths, say thank you to the NFL and move on.

[JohnC]

dont worry, i dont like jerry jones and dan snyder much more than i do smith.

 

maybe its just me but there have been enough things that ive seen out of smith that are grandstanding or even outright lying that i really think hes holding things up. where as i think the players and owners are negotiating money, i think de smith is negotiating his own power in a sense. i think a dollar to dollar negotiation would be done by now, i think when you get someone like smith at a high high level pulling in a sideways direction you get jammed up like we are now. forcing this into courts, a lockout, a decertification all hurt the owners and players a lot more than it hurts him.

 

We both have varying perspectives on this matter, respectful differences. One thing that Smith doesn't want is to be liked by the opposition. He wants to be the anti-Upshaw. That is his role. The other lead negotiator, Pash, is also a tough cookie. He was the architect of the NHL lockout. (Which I strongly supported.) He isn't interested in being liked either.

 

Goodell, who I like very much, has a different role. His utility is to be the peacemaker and work out a compromise when it is in reach. After the negotiations broke down he was seen in a bar talking to a union rep. The point being that the sides are still dealing even while there is ostensibly a walkout.

 

As far as taking the matter to court that is also a tactic. It was a court decision that advanced the players' position when they defeated the owners in court over the TV deal. The current court maneuver is to get an injunction to stop the lockout and then get back to the negotiating table to complete a deal that is already structured. Only the finishing touches need to be completed.

 

My general point is that when viewing the tactics of each side a lot of what we see has been scripted. This deal will get worked out if both sides keep their heads and don't let the animosty to overrule the business side of this stagecraft.

Edited March 16, 2011 by JohnC

[Reed83HOF]

Yeah...I meet with guys like Jerry Jones twice a week. They're abrasive, jerks, and generally a*holes. But if you are sending people into the room who can't handle it, you've lost before you started. That's exactly what they wanted. I'd be amazed if Drew Brees can take a pounding and verbal abuse from 300 pound men 16 times a year and can't take getting flipped off once by Jerry Jones. Shows sometimes the physical stuff isn't what defines a true man in today's culture...

 

Can't and Don't disagree with that, but I know (for me) respect is big...and that is just disrespectful and does get in the way of getting a deal done. the stress of trying to get adeal done is big enough, having an asshat like that grandstanding does nothing but cause temps to flair and emptions to get placed ahead of clear thinking...

[Malazan]

It's a very complex situation with plenty of blame on both sides. This particular 'the owners showed disrespect' while negotiating is baloney though because Smith was taking this legal from the getgo.

 

If you want to blame Jerry and his ilk for creating a financial mess that now needs to be rectified then you'll have better traction, but the players have gladly sailed along as it increased their salaries. Now that the hous...player market has crashed, they're all uppity. Neither side gets a pass as both were complicit in creating the financial issues the league now faces.

[Mr. WEO]

What you call a sham another person might call a tactic. If it worked before then why wouldn't you want to go back to the same well to draw your water. Is the de-certification sham any more of a sham than the fraudulent TV deal the owners contrived to replenish their coffers for lockout preparations?

 

You got two sides who are going to use whatever trick they can to get a bigger slice of the the revenue pie. A lot of money is at stake and a lot of ego is mixed in to make the battle more combustible. Eventually both sides are going to be sitting at the table shaking hands and signing a deal. In the end the customers will bear the costs.

The lockout insurance was, well, insurance against a potential lockout when the CBA expired. Smart move. Does NOT mean the owners were arguing in bad faith at the table--in fact, they made many concessions (dropped the demand for an extra billion, lowering it many times to $325 million; rookie cap-which all vets want; dropped the 18 game plan; $82 million for retired players). The players simply responded with "show us the books"--which they knew was meaningless, as they weren't expecting to see the books.

 

Bargaining in bad faith is evidenced by decertification.

 

Bottom line--if the nice Judge issues an injunction against the lockout, football goes on without a CBA and without union representation. Then what is the players plan? The will have to go back the table at some point? How do they do that?

[CosmicBills]

The lockout insurance was, well, insurance against a potential lockout when the CBA expired. Smart move. Does NOT mean the owners were arguing in bad faith at the table--in fact, they made many concessions (dropped the demand for an extra billion, lowering it many times to $325 million; rookie cap-which all vets want; dropped the 18 game plan; $82 million for retired players). The players simply responded with "show us the books"--which they knew was meaningless, as they weren't expecting to see the books.

 

Bargaining in bad faith is evidenced by decertification.

 

Bottom line--if the nice Judge issues an injunction against the lockout, football goes on without a CBA and without union representation. Then what is the players plan? The will have to go back the table at some point? How do they do that?

Amazing.

[Reed83HOF]

The lockout insurance was, well, insurance against a potential lockout when the CBA expired. Smart move. Does NOT mean the owners were arguing in bad faith at the table--in fact, they made many concessions (dropped the demand for an extra billion, lowering it many times to $325 million; rookie cap-which all vets want; dropped the 18 game plan; $82 million for retired players). The players simply responded with "show us the books"--which they knew was meaningless, as they weren't expecting to see the books.

 

Bargaining in bad faith is evidenced by decertification.

 

Bottom line--if the nice Judge issues an injunction against the lockout, football goes on without a CBA and without union representation. Then what is the players plan? The will have to go back the table at some point? How do they do that?

 

Well Said...

[NoSaint]

We both have varying perspectives on this matter, respectful differences. One thing that Smith doesn't want is to be liked by the opposition. He wants to be the anti-Upshaw. That is his role. The other lead negotiator, Pash, is also a tough cookie. He was the architect of the NHL lockout. (Which I strongly supported.) He isn't interested in being liked either.

 

Goodell, who I like very much, has a different role. His utility is to be the peacemaker and work out a compromise when it is in reach. After the negotiations broke down he was seen in a bar talking to a union rep. The point being that the sides are still dealing even while there is ostensibly a walkout.

 

As far as taking the matter to court that is also a tactic. It was a court decision that advanced the players' position when they defeated the owners in court over the TV deal. The current court maneuver is to get an injunction to stop the lockout and then get back to the negotiating table to complete a deal that is already structured. Only the finishing touches need to be completed.

 

My general point is that when viewing the tactics of each side a lot of what we see has been scripted. This deal will get worked out if both sides keep their heads and don't let the animosty to overrule the business side of this stagecraft.

 

I don't think either side is without blame - I just think if you pull him out and put in someone else we would be much closer to a fair and equitable solution. I think there are plenty of mistakes along the way, I just don't believe he's 100% committed to the players best interests as much as his own (which clearly screwing players doesn't achieve). Kind of like the owners not maximizing tv revenue for the players, I have a feeling in hindsight his legacy will not be as maximizing players well being, instead getting a little extra for himself but we will see. It's just a general impression.

[JohnC]

The lockout insurance was, well, insurance against a potential lockout when the CBA expired. Smart move.

 

WEO, You know better. I know you do. The so called lockout insurance was attained by making a patently illegal deal with the very bludgeoned TV networks. The money was meant to be used as a reserve fund to out resource the union during the owners self-imposed lockout. Their intention was to crush the union and impose a new order. A Ronald Reagan appointed judge who spent the majority of his career as a corporate attorney fighting unions put an end to the owners' brazen behavior.

 

 

"Does NOT mean the owners were arguing in bad faith at the table--in fact, they made many concessions (dropped the demand for an extra billion, lowering it many times to $325 million; rookie cap-which all vets want; dropped the 18 game plan; $82 million for retired players). The players simply responded with "show us the books"--which they knew was meaningless, as they weren't expecting to see the books.

 

Here is where I do agree with you. The owners have dramatically moved off of their position. That is not a surprise. Judge Doty's common sense decision put an end to the owners' bone crushing intention. It wasn't until their ill-gotten slush fund leverage was taken away from them that the moderate owners responded with a greater degree of flexibility in their positon.

 

"Bargaining in bad faith is evidenced by decertification."

 

There is a lot of animosity built up between the two sides. The union used the decertification maneuver to threaten them with the discovery process. What the owners are absolutely fanatical about is not showing their financial status. I wonder why?

 

As you have indicated there has been a lot of movement in the negotiations. That in itself is more telling than the bull crap theatrics. If the union gets too intoxicated with some of their progress they will end up sabotging themselves. The reality is this CBA battle is not about being right or wrong. It is about making a deal. With some wisdom and respect for the other side a deal should be made. Then both sides can go on making ungodly sums of money.

 

Bottom line--if the nice Judge issues an injunction against the lockout, football goes on without a CBA and without union representation. Then what is the players plan? The will have to go back the table at some point? How do they do that?

 

The paradox is a Judge's ruling issuing an injunction against the lockout benefits both sides. Assuming that is done then both sides go back to preparing for the season and both sides get back to bargaining, whether it is formally done or not is irrelevant. If you really believe that the decertified union is still not working on behalf of the players then you are gullible enough to invest in Japanese Nuclear Power. Trust me, you don't want to do that.

[Ramius]

 

The paradox is a Judge's ruling issuing an injunction against the lockout benefits both sides. Assuming that is done then both sides go back to preparing for the season and both sides get back to bargaining, whether it is formally done or not is irrelevant. If you really believe that the decertified union is still not working on behalf of the players then you are gullible enough to invest in Japanese Nuclear Power. Trust me, you don't want to do that.

 

And you've just answered yourself as to why the decertification is a sham. It was done with the sole intention of giving the players the ability to file lawsuits against the NFL. The players were not bargaining in good faith (something they accused the owners of).

 

As for the lockout insurance, that wasn't made for a plan to lockout, it was made in case there was a lockout. Big difference. The players association, under idiot's direction, always intended to decertify. Hopefully the nice judge will call a spade a spade, and still recognize that the NFLPA exists and force them back to the table. They are up a creek because the judge that is completely biased and in their pocket isn't on the case.

 

My beef with douchegab De Smith is that 1) he never intended to bargain, it was always his mission to take this to court, and 2) he's being a gigantic prick by using this huge issue to make a name for himself, and he's nto acting in the players' best interests. He's hoping to stamp his name on potentially sweeping changes in the NFL, so he can get all the glory. Someone with the players' best interests would still be at the bargaining table trying to work on a good deal. He's making this a dog and pony show to pump up his own name, and is simply using the NFLPA as his platform. The guy is an ignorant douchebag asshat.

 

Smith's tactics would have worked in the 80s, when the owners had complete control. As of now, the owners and players are on almost equal footing, so De Smith essentially going all in, when there are only incremental gains to be made, is a moronic strategy.

[billsfan89]

I put the blame on the two owners who constructed the horrendous 2006 CBA. Jerry Jones and Robert Craft. It was a horrible deal for the owners and what made it worse was that they gave the other owners 45 minutes to read it. The 2006 CBA mishandling was the epicenter for all of this mess.

 

Either way just get this done you guys are killing the golden goose.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

...and so Trotter have the players as sources for this story. Does anyone else other than a player come forward with an account?

 

Didn't think so- sounds like a perfect story to me

[JohnC]

And you've just answered yourself as to why the decertification is a sham. It was done with the sole intention of giving the players the ability to file lawsuits against the NFL. The players were not bargaining in good faith (something they accused the owners of).

 

I agree with you. It is basically a sham. It is a legal maneuver made to benefit the players in a hardnosed battle against a well resourced opposition.

 

As for the lockout insurance, that wasn't made for a plan to lockout, it was made in case there was a lockout. Big difference.

 

The illegal tactic was made to finance a lockout. If you disagree with that then that is fine.

 

 

The players association, under idiot's direction, always intended to decertify. Hopefully the nice judge will call a spade a spade, and still recognize that the NFLPA exists and force them back to the table.

 

That is exactly what the union and owners want. To get back to the table and finish a deal. I said that in a prior posting. You may not agree with my assessment but that is what I believe.

 

They are up a creek because the judge that is completely biased and in their pocket isn't on the case.

 

Judge Doty is a Ronald Reagan appointed judge. Most of his legal career was spent as a corporate attorney competing against union representation. Although you may not agree with this one particular ruling he is considered by his peers and the legal community as a straight shooter with no hidden agenda.

 

My beef with douchegab De Smith is that 1) he never intended to bargain, it was always his mission to take this to court, and 2) he's being a gigantic prick by using this huge issue to make a name for himself, and he's nto acting in the players' best interests. He's hoping to stamp his name on potentially sweeping changes in the NFL, so he can get all the glory. Someone with the players' best interests would still be at the bargaining table trying to work on a good deal. He's making this a dog and pony show to pump up his own name, and is simply using the NFLPA as his platform. The guy is an ignorant douchebag asshat.

 

Mr Smith is aggressively acting on his clients behalf. Just as the representation of the owners is doing. All the particpants involved are very accomplished people who know how to play hardball in a high stakes negotiation. Mr. Smith has to satisfy the people he works for, not the people he is competing against.

 

Smith's tactics would have worked in the 80s, when the owners had complete control. As of now, the owners and players are on almost equal footing, so De Smith essentially going all in, when there are only incremental gains to be made, is a moronic strategy.

 

At some point Mr. Smith will be shaking hands with the owners' represtation at the negotiation table signing a new CBA agreement. Then all this bullcrap will be over with.