per PFT - point the decertification finger at Jerrah

[Ramius]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Gotcha. We seem to be more on the same side than i thought. The best thing for everyone involved, including the fans, is to get these chumps from both sides back to the table.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Ramius

[JohnC]

Gotcha. We seem to be more on the same side than i thought. The best thing for everyone involved, including the fans, is to get these chumps from both sides back to the table.

 

[Mr. WEO]

Amazing.

 

Why thank you.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

John,

 

The lockout insurance was not "patently illegal"--in fact it was not illegal at all; no law was broken. One lawyer (the special master) appointed to review the disputed claim ruled in favor of the owners. Another lawyer (Judge Doty) disagreed and reversed the ruling of the special master. And depite Doty being "appointed by Reagan"--taker a closer look at his history with the league and the players....

 

From an article in the NYT:

 

"For N.F.L. players, federal court in Minneapolis is a legal nirvana......Over nearly 40 years, cases filed there by players and their union have found favor in legal rulings by United States district court judges like Earl Larson and, since the late 1980s, David S. Doty.........But how did this Midwest court become the focal point for so many N.F.L. legal battles and, in effect, the home field for the players?......But if Larson set the tone for the sport’s labor disputes, it was Doty who became the league’s bête noire. Since soon after his appointment to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, Doty has regularly ruled against the league....Although the owners have complained, Doty added, “all they’ve done is make tons of money.”......If Doty does hear the new case, it would be much like a veteran player reopening a dog-eared playbook.

 

The league's lockout was "self imposed" only because their last offer (of many) was rejected by the union, which was not interested in any bargaining at all. They wanted to concede nothing from the last CBA. They proved this by making the demand to see all of every team's finances their only bargaining point. They knew years ago the owners would never agree to this yet they made the dramatic show of throwing up their hands and saying the league won't bargain with them. Then they filed the decertification papers (which were completed long before the last day of negotiations, apparently) immediately after rejecting a decent offer--and despite the fact that the league had not yet locked them out.

 

The union is the group that wishes to create (or have the courts create) a "new order" in how the league is run. If this was not true, they would have taken the last deal offered. What do the players do now? If there is an injuntion against the lockout, and both sies come back to the table, who represents them? There is no union. Also, what if, by some nearly impossible ruling, the NFL loses its current level of anti-trust protection? The NFL that would emerge would be quite different tnah it is now--THAT would be like the MLB. The majority of players would greatly suffer, as would parochial teams like the Bills.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

Why thank you.

 

 

 

John,

 

The lockout insurance was not "patently illegal"--in fact it was not illegal at all; no law was broken. One lawyer (the special master) appointed to review the disputed claim ruled in favor of the owners. Another lawyer (Judge Doty) disagreed and reversed the ruling of the special master. And depite Doty being "appointed by Reagan"--taker a closer look at his history with the league and the players....

 

From an article in the NYT:

 

 

 

The league's lockout was "self imposed" only because their last offer (of many) was rejected by the union, which was not interested in any bargaining at all. They wanted to concede nothing from the last CBA. They proved this by making the demand to see all of every team's finances their only bargaining point. They knew years ago the owners would never agree to this yet they made the dramatic show of throwing up their hands and saying the league won't bargain with them. Then they filed the decertification papers (which were completed long before the last day of negotiations, apparently) immediately after rejecting a decent offer--and despite the fact that the league had not yet locked them out.

 

The union is the group that wishes to create (or have the courts create) a "new order" in how the league is run. If this was not true, they would have taken the last deal offered. What do the players do now? If there is an injuntion against the lockout, and both sies come back to the table, who represents them? There is no union. Also, what if, by some nearly impossible ruling, the NFL loses its current level of anti-trust protection? The NFL that would emerge would be quite different tnah it is now--THAT would be like the MLB. The majority of players would greatly suffer, as would parochial teams like the Bills.

 

We can go around in circles chasing our tail and still come to the same point. The owners re-opened the CBA. That was their prerogative. They were the ones who wanted to create a new world order. Forget about the legality or illegality of the coerced TV deal. It was structured in such a way that there was an incentive to lockout the players because it gave the owners an upper hand. On what basis do you disagree with that assessment?

 

Of course the union wanted to have a more legalistic fight rather than a drawn out fight with the more resourced opposition. Picking a fight is one thing. But when you do that don't expect to dictate how the other side is going to fight. To give you a crude analogy: When you kick me in the balls don't complain when I bite your freaking ear off.

 

You seem to want to categorize Judge Doty as a union enabler. He is far from it. Just maybe his siding with the players on many issues was due to the merit of the cases? The sly owners had the responsibility to negotiate a TV deal with the revenues being shared with the players. They worked a deal that not only paid less but would also still pay the owners and not the players if there was a lockout. How is that a fair labor deal under a binding CBA? Judge Doty made a common sense decision that the TV shenanigans was not a fair labor practice.

 

Please stop with the other side fights unfairly responses. When you pick a fight you don't get to choose how the other side is going to fight back. Where you and I agree (I think) is that both sides will have to get back to the table and work it out. And that is how it should be.

Edited March 17, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

We can go around in circles chasing our tail and still come to the same point. The owners re-opened the CBA. That was their prerogative. They were the ones who wanted to create a new world order. Forget about the legality or illegality of the coerced TV deal. It was structured in such a way that there was an incentive to lockout the players because it gave the owners an upper hand. On what basis do you disagree with that assessment?

 

Of course the union wanted to have a more legalistic fight rather than a drawn out fight with the more resourced opposition. Picking a fight is one thing. But when you do that don't expect to dictate how the other side is going to fight. To give you a crude analogy: When you kick me in the balls don't complain when I bite your freaking ear off.

 

You seem to want to categorize Judge Doty as a union enabler. He is far from it. Just maybe his siding with the players on many issues was due to the merit of the cases? The sly owners had the responsibility to negotiate a TV deal with the revenues being shared with the players. They worked a deal that not only paid less but would also still pay the owners and not the players if there was a lockout. How is that a fair labor deal under a binding CBA? Judge Doty made a common sense decision that the TV shenanigans was not a fair labor practice.

 

Please stop with the other side fights unfairly responses. When you pick a fight you don't get to choose how the other side is going to fight back. Where you and I agree (I think) is that both sides will have to get back to the table and work it out. And that is how it should be.

 

How can you say there was "an incentive to lockout" when the league was the side making the offers? The owners wanted a deal, not a lockout. All it would have cost the players is 10 million off the cap every year--many teams don't even come close the cap anyway! It's a meaningless number. Just as the NFL was rolling the dice (a tiny bit) with the American Needle case and hoping for a masssive win, the union has chosen not ot negotiate in good faith and is pinning their hopes on some seismic ruling that would change forever their relationship with the NFL. You also seem to forget that the "insurance" isn't like any insurance you have--it's a loan that must be repaid by the owners. It allows them to remain a "going concern", as they say, until the games resume.

 

The owners did not take "less" in their renegotiated contract with the networks. They took the same amount they were getting under the existing contract. It's not a semantic point. If you want to argue that they could have gotten more, you're probably right.

 

The lockout insurance was a smart move as the owners rightly anticipated that the union would not be interested in any negotiated deal. The MLB once took out such insurance from Lloyds, but obviously no company would write such a policy today.

 

Judge Doty's history (even the NYT concedes it) and his own words speak to his bias.

 

As for the "Please stop with the other side fights unfairly responses", I have not yet made such a response. You are the one who says the owners acted unfairly. I have only said that the union made a sham of the negotiations (in their best interest, as you pointed out) by not bargaining in good faith. Has nothing to do with fairness (who cares?). It's just what they did.

[K Gun Special]

How can you say there was "an incentive to lockout" when the league was the side making the offers? The owners wanted a deal, not a lockout. All it would have cost the players is 10 million off the cap every year--many teams don't even come close the cap anyway! It's a meaningless number. Just as the NFL was rolling the dice (a tiny bit) with the American Needle case and hoping for a masssive win, the union has chosen not ot negotiate in good faith and is pinning their hopes on some seismic ruling that would change forever their relationship with the NFL. You also seem to forget that the "insurance" isn't like any insurance you have--it's a loan that must be repaid by the owners. It allows them to remain a "going concern", as they say, until the games resume.

 

The owners did not take "less" in their renegotiated contract with the networks. They took the same amount they were getting under the existing contract. It's not a semantic point. If you want to argue that they could have gotten more, you're probably right.

 

The lockout insurance was a smart move as the owners rightly anticipated that the union would not be interested in any negotiated deal. The MLB once took out such insurance from Lloyds, but obviously no company would write such a policy today.

 

Judge Doty's history (even the NYT concedes it) and his own words speak to his bias.

 

As for the "Please stop with the other side fights unfairly responses", I have not yet made such a response. You are the one who says the owners acted unfairly. I have only said that the union made a sham of the negotiations (in their best interest, as you pointed out) by not bargaining in good faith. Has nothing to do with fairness (who cares?). It's just what they did.

 

Even the NYT concedes it? Its not hard to see how your political beliefs are getting in the way of your analysis.

 

The players were happy with the previous deal, the owners werent and claimed they werent making enough $$. So the players said sure show us some proof and we will work something out.

 

A sham? man you are way off. The players and owners were working towards a deal.

 

Its quite a stretch to call out the players and blindly defend the owners when they are trying nothing more than a money grab. If its not, show some financials showing otherwise, make the players look foolish.

 

Its telling that this is not happening.

 

Before anyone starts with the "i cant do that at my job" meme, no you cant and you arent part of a select group generating $9 Billion a year either. Its not the same.

[JohnC]

Even the NYT concedes it? Its not hard to see how your political beliefs are getting in the way of your analysis.

 

WEO is not going to let go of his very slanted argument that the TV deal was not a contrived deal to strongly position the owners in a very desired for lockout. Conceding that point puts the onus on this manufactured fiasco on the owners rather than the players. He is not going to dismantle the foundation of his view even if it conflicts with the facts.

 

The players were happy with the previous deal, the owners werent and claimed they werent making enough $$. So the players said sure show us some proof and we will work something out.

 

Autocrats don't feel there is a need to prove their point. They prefer that others simply accept them. Peasants shouldn't question royalty.

 

A sham? man you are way off. The players and owners were working towards a deal.

 

Away from the lights a deal is still be worked out. Eventually the two parties are going to negotiate a deal. Some people are more bothered that a deal will be negotiated instead of being imposed. Some people just have different world views.

[Mr. WEO]

Even the NYT concedes it? Its not hard to see how your political beliefs are getting in the way of your analysis.

 

The players were happy with the previous deal, the owners werent and claimed they werent making enough $$. So the players said sure show us some proof and we will work something out.

 

A sham? man you are way off. The players and owners were working towards a deal.

 

Its quite a stretch to call out the players and blindly defend the owners when they are trying nothing more than a money grab. If its not, show some financials showing otherwise, make the players look foolish.

 

Its telling that this is not happening.

 

Before anyone starts with the "i cant do that at my job" meme, no you cant and you arent part of a select group generating $9 Billion a year either. Its not the same.

Come on---pointing out that the even left leaning paper of record considers Judge Doty's court a "legal nirvana" for players has revealed my "political beliefs"? If that exact same article had appeared in the WSJ, it would be written off as their typical pro-business propaganda. Jus tthought it underscored the point I was making to counter John's belief that the Judge's purity may be beyond reproach.

 

What deal were the players offering, other than "show us all of your financial information"? Also, they were offered unprecedented financial info--info Jerry would love to see on Ralph, no doubt. Your claim otherwise shows your blindness, I guess.

[K Gun Special]

Come on---pointing out that the even left leaning paper of record considers Judge Doty's court a "legal nirvana" for players has revealed my "political beliefs"? If that exact same article had appeared in the WSJ, it would be written off as their typical pro-business propaganda. Jus tthought it underscored the point I was making to counter John's belief that the Judge's purity may be beyond reproach.

 

What deal were the players offering, other than "show us all of your financial information"? Also, they were offered unprecedented financial info--info Jerry would love to see on Ralph, no doubt. Your claim otherwise shows your blindness, I guess.

 

I'm not blind but i have conducted high stakes negotiations will tons o money on the table. I'm certainly not blind to the issues surrounding these types of negotiations nor the NFL issues.

 

Sure Judge Doty has been great for the players, but other judges have been unfriendly to the NFL as well. You see us Americans, including judges, have been kind to sports monopolies as long as they play by certain rules.

 

The NFL will likely have to give up some of the info during discovery they are withholding.

 

The PA was asking for specific financial information, the NFL gave them other stuff and told the media they handed over financials.

 

You see the problem here is that you and others are blaming the players for bad faith.

 

The owners broke the current deal, as they had a contractual right to do, and now are asking for more money. The ultimate play will be to hand over some of the info the PA wants, back them into a corner, and win the day.

 

The owners will have to show their cards or take far less than they were asking for.

[K-9]

I don't think the owners have any qualms about showing the players their books as they pertain to profits. I believe many can show a decline in profits. The sticking point is showing their expenses. That's never going to happen as long as they aren't compelled to do so. I have a hunch there is a world of embarrassing "expense" items in those books.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[CosmicBills]

I'm not blind but i have conducted high stakes negotiations will tons o money on the table. I'm certainly not blind to the issues surrounding these types of negotiations nor the NFL issues.

 

Sure Judge Doty has been great for the players, but other judges have been unfriendly to the NFL as well. You see us Americans, including judges, have been kind to sports monopolies as long as they play by certain rules.

 

The NFL will likely have to give up some of the info during discovery they are withholding.

 

The PA was asking for specific financial information, the NFL gave them other stuff and told the media they handed over financials.

 

You see the problem here is that you and others are blaming the players for bad faith.

 

The owners broke the current deal, as they had a contractual right to do, and now are asking for more money. The ultimate play will be to hand over some of the info the PA wants, back them into a corner, and win the day.

 

The owners will have to show their cards or take far less than they were asking for.

This.

[Mr. WEO]

I'm not blind but i have conducted high stakes negotiations will tons o money on the table. I'm certainly not blind to the issues surrounding these types of negotiations nor the NFL issues.

 

Sure Judge Doty has been great for the players, but other judges have been unfriendly to the NFL as well. You see us Americans, including judges, have been kind to sports monopolies as long as they play by certain rules.

 

The NFL will likely have to give up some of the info during discovery they are withholding.

 

The PA was asking for specific financial information, the NFL gave them other stuff and told the media they handed over financials.

 

You see the problem here is that you and others are blaming the players for bad faith.

 

The owners broke the current deal, as they had a contractual right to do, and now are asking for more money. The ultimate play will be to hand over some of the info the PA wants, back them into a corner, and win the day.

 

The owners will have to show their cards or take far less than they were asking for.

 

You should consider that it may not be that the teams are hiding something nefarious in the books. It may be that they think it's a bad precedent, for a private corporation, to agree to divulge this info to an employee/union group.

 

Anyway, I don't hink the union really cares much about "the books"--it was a reason for them to not seriously participate in bargaining. If the union actually was interested in seeing the finances of the owners--why have they never before this dispute held out to see the books? When the agreed to "59.5% of all revenues" in the 2006 CBA, how did they verify total league revenues?

 

Again, in real terms, this comes down to the owners wanting to lower the salary cap going forward--it's not about them taking money out of the contracts already signed by and paid to players.

[JohnC]

Again, in real terms, this comes down to the owners wanting to lower the salary cap going forward--it's not about them taking money out of the contracts already signed by and paid to players.

 

To that request the players are saying no. What a surprise!!!!! In essence what the owners are saying is that while we made more money under the current CBA, we expect you to give back some of your gains. Why? Because we say so. We, the owners, don't feel that it is any of your business what we make; on the other hand, it is unacceptable what you make.

 

Thinking you are a potentate doesn't make you a potentate. Being a legend in one's own mind doesn't mean that the parties sitting on the opposite side of the table have bought into the other parties' delusions of grandeur. Tell it to the judge who will be equally unimpressed.

 

Sometimes what energizes the opposition is not the terms of the debate so much as the pompous attitude one has to be exposed to.

Edited March 17, 2011 by JohnC

[CosmicBills]

Again, in real terms, this comes down to the owners wanting to lower the salary cap going forward--it's not about them taking money out of the contracts already signed by and paid to players.

Yeah, you're right! It's about the owners wanting to pay the players less in the future -- despite the game generating more money than ever (thanks to the players, not the owners). Why? Because the owners want to make more money.

[Ramius]

Yeah, you're right! It's about the owners wanting to pay the players less in the future -- despite the game generating more money than ever (thanks to the players, not the owners). Why? Because the owners want to make more money.

 

Less percentage. But make no mistake, in an absolute sense, the players will still be making MORE money.

[JohnC]

Less percentage. But make no mistake, in an absolute sense, the players will still be making MORE money.

 

If the revenues increase then why is there a need to change the percentages? In an absolute sense then everyone is making more. Why is there an issue of altering the percentages when the owners and players are all making more money under this CBA compared to the prior CBA?

 

I keep hearing the mantra that the CBA deal that was re-opened does not work well for the owners? How so? If the profit margins for the owners in general substantially declined then I would certainly be for a change in percentages. If that is not the case then what is the basis for a change in lowering the percentage for the players' side?

 

The economy had taken a scarey plunge in the prior couple of years. It is starting to gradually show some uptick. During the down period the owners made more money than they have ever had. They made so much money that they steadfastly refused to divulge their profit margins. Why do you think that is the case? Do you think that if their profits precipitously declined they would be reluctant to demonstrate in some form that decline? If the profits margins are surging in bad economic times it stands to reason that the revenues and profit margin should increase when there is more discretionary money available.

 

All along I have felt that the issue is going to be settled at the negotiating table. What the owners have to realize is that they have to make a case for their position. They are not going to get what they want by a fiat. If they want a bigger slice of the pie to go into their coffers before the player percentages are applied then they will have to make adjustments in other areas such as health insurance coverage etc. Another path to a compromise is by moving the floor of the cap up closer to the ceiling so teams such as Buffalo can't get away with a very low payroll. In that way the players actual payroll goes up within the cap.

 

The owners are not going to accept the status quo. The players are not going to give back unless there is an offset to balance out what they give back. That is the reality of labor negotiations when the state of the business is in very good shape. If the business was faltering then that is an altogether different situation. Eventually an agreement will be cobbled together that will to some reasonable degree satisfy both sides of this conflict.

 

There is a tragedy occurrng in Japan with serious nuclear implications. The Middle East is in turmoil. The U.S. is involed in a very complicated and dangerous war in Afghan/Pak. The economy is still in a fragile state. All the while two sides can't agree on how to divide an 8-9 Billion $$$ revenue pie. How absurd and venal can you get?

Edited March 18, 2011 by JohnC

[Malazan]

I keep hearing the mantra that the CBA deal that was re-opened does not work well for the owners? How so? If the profit margins for the owners in general substantially declined then I would certainly be for a change in percentages. If that is not the case then what is the basis for a change in lowering the percentage for the players' side?

 

I've explained this a few times on this board. The owners have to be able to show a certain level of profit to keep the franchises valued where they are at because no one can buy a team without financing. Banks aren't interested in financing a team worth say...813 million that has revenue of 30 million. That team is the Bills. They only make 30 million because Ralph has no loans. Loans would be around 20/million a year at least. That leaves about 10 million in profit. Would you be comfortable lending that money to someone when at 20 million / year that is a 40 year relationship. How many Banks are going to look at that and say yea..we'll do that when the valuation of teams has pretty much hit the maximum.

 

Now, Jerry, Snyder, Kraft are at fault because they helped to drive up the valuation on franchises and that monstrosity in dallas certainly helped cause this situation, but the players merrily rode along as they were getting more money.

 

Smith has also been going legal since he was hired. The players *got* the financial information they wanted and then demanded 10 years worth of information. What are they going to find in financial records from ten years ago? That revenue went up? They already know that and as I mentioned above, it's not exactly about sticking dollar bills in the owners pockets, but ensuring the financial solvency of teams so they *can* be sold. If no one can buy a billion dollar franchise then the value drops, the banks that are financing these teams get nervous (possibly interest goes up) and everyone loses money.

 

Smith is not interested in getting the best deal. I'm sure he grasps the fiscal reality and the potential pitfalls of his current scorched earth strategy. He's interested in winning for himself and nothing else.

[JohnC]

I've explained this a few times on this board. The owners have to be able to show a certain level of profit to keep the franchises valued where they are at because no one can buy a team without financing. Banks aren't interested in financing a team worth say...813 million that has revenue of 30 million. That team is the Bills. They only make 30 million because Ralph has no loans. Loans would be around 20/million a year at least. That leaves about 10 million in profit. Would you be comfortable lending that money to someone when at 20 million / year that is a 40 year relationship. How many Banks are going to look at that and say yea..we'll do that when the valuation of teams has pretty much hit the maximum.

 

Now, Jerry, Snyder, Kraft are at fault because they helped to drive up the valuation on franchises and that monstrosity in dallas certainly helped cause this situation, but the players merrily rode along as they were getting more money.

 

Smith has also been going legal since he was hired. The players *got* the financial information they wanted and then demanded 10 years worth of information. What are they going to find in financial records from ten years ago? That revenue went up? They already know that and as I mentioned above, it's not exactly about sticking dollar bills in the owners pockets, but ensuring the financial solvency of teams so they *can* be sold. If no one can buy a billion dollar franchise then the value drops, the banks that are financing these teams get nervous (possibly interest goes up) and everyone loses money.

 

Smith is not interested in getting the best deal. I'm sure he grasps the fiscal reality and the potential pitfalls of his current scorched earth strategy. He's interested in winning for himself and nothing else.

 

Your points are well made. On the financial disclosure issue I disagree with you. The owners are only willing to let the players get a glimpse of some data that is meaningless for someone trying to analyze the financial status of the franchises. One of the strategies is that more data will have to be disclosed in a legal setting than from a negotiation setting. In addition, the requesting of more data is also a point of leverage to get a better deal. The owners would rather concede more at the table than show what their financial position is. What does that tell you?

 

Your central point is about the value of the franchises and how that affects the ability to finance a sale. You are making the point that a franchise such as the Cowboys is inflating the value of the other franchises. In other words there is a franchise bubble that is comparable to the housing bubble that exploded. When that happened the values came down to a more realistic number. Maybe that is what needs to happen in the NFL? There is nothing wrong with a more realistic evaluation, there is something wrong in the long run when the values don't reflect the market reality. If the owners don't want to be realistic in their business dealings the bankers might make them face the reality of the real world, instead of the fantasy world.

 

As it stands I don't have a memory of any quality prospective owner not able to get financing for a franchise. You are talking about people who are in a very high strata. If a bank won't totally finance a purchase a lot of these "special category" purchasers will sell some assets and get the principle down to a manageable level. What is wrong with that? If you want to get into the "club" then you have to use some of your own money to pay for that priviledge.

 

 

Your criticism of Smith taking the legal route has me perplexed. It was the legal route challenging the TV deal that changed the dynamic of the negotiation towards the union's favor (for the time being). From the players perspective that was a smart move not an unfair move.

 

Mr. Smith is not taking a scortched earth approach (your discription). He is using whatever advantages he feels he has as the owners are using whatever advantages they have. Did you forget the owners' TV deal shenanigans?

 

My last point is that when one side makes the decision to re-open a deal then don't expect to determine how the other side is going to respond to that re-opening. Their strategy is going to serve their needs not the other sides needs.

 

The next critical date is April 6. Hopefully, the ruling will be an injunction against the lockout and a return to the negotiating table. That is where it is going to be settled.

[Ramius]

If the revenues increase then why is there a need to change the percentages? In an absolute sense then everyone is making more. Why is there an issue of altering the percentages when the owners and players are all making more money under this CBA compared to the prior CBA?

 

I keep hearing the mantra that the CBA deal that was re-opened does not work well for the owners? How so? If the profit margins for the owners in general substantially declined then I would certainly be for a change in percentages. If that is not the case then what is the basis for a change in lowering the percentage for the players' side?

 

The economy had taken a scarey plunge in the prior couple of years. It is starting to gradually show some uptick. During the down period the owners made more money than they have ever had. They made so much money that they steadfastly refused to divulge their profit margins. Why do you think that is the case? Do you think that if their profits precipitously declined they would be reluctant to demonstrate in some form that decline? If the profits margins are surging in bad economic times it stands to reason that the revenues and profit margin should increase when there is more discretionary money available.

 

All along I have felt that the issue is going to be settled at the negotiating table. What the owners have to realize is that they have to make a case for their position. They are not going to get what they want by a fiat. If they want a bigger slice of the pie to go into their coffers before the player percentages are applied then they will have to make adjustments in other areas such as health insurance coverage etc. Another path to a compromise is by moving the floor of the cap up closer to the ceiling so teams such as Buffalo can't get away with a very low payroll. In that way the players actual payroll goes up within the cap.

 

The owners are not going to accept the status quo. The players are not going to give back unless there is an offset to balance out what they give back. That is the reality of labor negotiations when the state of the business is in very good shape. If the business was faltering then that is an altogether different situation. Eventually an agreement will be cobbled together that will to some reasonable degree satisfy both sides of this conflict.

 

There is a tragedy occurrng in Japan with serious nuclear implications. The Middle East is in turmoil. The U.S. is involed in a very complicated and dangerous war in Afghan/Pak. The economy is still in a fragile state. All the while two sides can't agree on how to divide an 8-9 Billion $$$ revenue pie. How absurd and venal can you get?

 

The owners offered to show the profits, which frankly, is all the players need to see. They have no need to see all the revenues and financial records of a private company. Hopefully on april 6th, the judge will backhand de smith, declare the decertification a sham, state that the NFLPA still exists (as it does) and force the players back to the table to accept a deal.

 

I'm not sure why any Bills fans are on the side of the players. the bigger cut the players get means a higher salary cap, and we'd soon be at the point where the "cap" was meaningless. Whats the good of a 200 million dollar salary cap if onyl Dallas and Washington can spend to it? the cap needs to be like it was before 2006, when it actually had meaning and teams actually got penalized for bad contracts and not managing the cap wisely.

 

I'd be fine if the players were going to put more money towards safety and post-career health benefits for retired players, but the NFLPA doesn't give a crap about them. they want to line their own pockets and thats it.

[CosmicBills]

The owners offered to show the profits, which frankly, is all the players need to see. ...

That's not true. When you're talking about revenue sharing, which is the deal that the Owners agreed to, you need to see more than just profits because guess what, profits don't tell the whole story.

 

Put it in other terms -- in my business studios pay back end (a cut of a film's revenues) to writer's and actors. It's in every contract that's signed. Yet, studios are notorious for hiding money and finding creative ways to show that a film hasn't made money. Best example, the studios claim Spider-man 2 didn't turn a profit. The movie made $370,000,000+ just in the US ...

 

So yeah, you need to see more than just the "profits" if you want to see the real picture.

[K Gun Special]

The owners offered to show the profits, which frankly, is all the players need to see. They have no need to see all the revenues and financial records of a private company. Hopefully on april 6th, the judge will backhand de smith, declare the decertification a sham, state that the NFLPA still exists (as it does) and force the players back to the table to accept a deal.

 

I'm not sure why any Bills fans are on the side of the players. the bigger cut the players get means a higher salary cap, and we'd soon be at the point where the "cap" was meaningless. Whats the good of a 200 million dollar salary cap if onyl Dallas and Washington can spend to it? the cap needs to be like it was before 2006, when it actually had meaning and teams actually got penalized for bad contracts and not managing the cap wisely.

 

I'd be fine if the players were going to put more money towards safety and post-career health benefits for retired players, but the NFLPA doesn't give a crap about them. they want to line their own pockets and thats it.

 

 

The players want rookie money shifted to retirements. They arent asking for more of the pie either. Not sure how you think that even if they did it would necessarily mean higher caps.

[JohnC]

The owners offered to show the profits, which frankly, is all the players need to see. They have no need to see all the revenues and financial records of a private company. Hopefully on april 6th, the judge will backhand de smith, declare the decertification a sham, state that the NFLPA still exists (as it does) and force the players back to the table to accept a deal.

 

I agree with you. The players don't trust the owners numbers and the owners want to limit as much data as possible from being revealed. The solution is as you stated. The judge in the end will determine what is to be revealed and what is not. I still contend that the data request is as much as negotiating tool for the union as it is a substative issue for them.

 

If the judge issues the lockout injunction then the players go back to work. It is the owners who locked out the players, not the reverse. Whether there is a decertification, sham or not, the players would still be training at the facilities. Again, it is the owners who have locked out the players. In a prior de-certification the players continued with their normal preparations and played on for years before the union was officially re-certified, sham or not.

 

I'm not sure why any Bills fans are on the side of the players. the bigger cut the players get means a higher salary cap, and we'd soon be at the point where the "cap" was meaningless.

 

The players are not asking for more. They are simply asking to maintain their current status.

 

Whats the good of a 200 million dollar salary cap if onyl Dallas and Washington can spend to it? the cap needs to be like it was before 2006, when it actually had meaning and teams actually got penalized for bad contracts and not managing the cap wisely.

 

The owners and players have made more money under this current agreement than it did with the prior agreement. As far as bad contracts--what does that mean? The owners negotiate the deals on their behalf. If it is a bad contract then it is their mistake and miscalculation. When the Bills signed Dockery and Langston Walker to those stupid contracts whose fault was it? There was not one team in the league other than the incompetent Bills who would have offered such largess to such mediocre talents. How does one write a CBA to account for an organizational incompetence?

 

I'd be fine if the players were going to put more money towards safety and post-career health benefits for retired players, but the NFLPA doesn't give a crap about them. they want to line their own pockets and thats it.

 

This is a case where both sides at the table are trying to do a better job for the retired players.

[JohnC]

That's not true. When you're talking about revenue sharing, which is the deal that the Owners agreed to, you need to see more than just profits because guess what, profits don't tell the whole story.

 

Put it in other terms -- in my business studios pay back end (a cut of a film's revenues) to writer's and actors. It's in every contract that's signed. Yet, studios are notorious for hiding money and finding creative ways to show that a film hasn't made money. Best example, the studios claim Spider-man 2 didn't turn a profit. The movie made $370,000,000+ just in the US ...

 

So yeah, you need to see more than just the "profits" if you want to see the real picture.

 

The corporate jet that Danny Snyder uses to fly in his draft prospects and free agent prospects is of course expensed to the organization. Why not just pay for a first class airline ticket for the prospective employee? When he flys in his chopter from the training facilities in Virginia to the stadium in Maryland (about 20 miles) for the draft party the expense is put on the franchise ledger sheet. He simply is putting on a show for the common folk.

 

Dan Snyder takes being profligate to another level. A little padding is one thing but the level he does it is absurd. What Snyder has clearly shown is that spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee success on the field. It comes down to not how much you spend as much as how you spend your money.

Edited March 18, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

The players want rookie money shifted to retirements. They arent asking for more of the pie either. Not sure how you think that even if they did it would necessarily mean higher caps.

The players want the "rookie money" to go to the veteran players. The NFL agreed to this.

 

 

I agree with you. The players don't trust the owners numbers and the owners want to limit as much data as possible from being revealed. The solution is as you stated. The judge in the end will determine what is to be revealed and what is not. I still contend that the data request is as much as negotiating tool for the union as it is a substative issue for them.

 

If the judge issues the lockout injunction then the players go back to work. It is the owners who locked out the players, not the reverse. Whether there is a decertification, sham or not, the players would still be training at the facilities. Again, it is the owners who have locked out the players. In a prior de-certification the players continued with their normal preparations and played on for years before the union was officially re-certified, sham or not.

 

 

 

The players are not asking for more. They are simply asking to maintain their current status.

 

 

 

The owners and players have made more money under this current agreement than it did with the prior agreement. As far as bad contracts--what does that mean? The owners negotiate the deals on their behalf. If it is a bad contract then it is their mistake and miscalculation. When the Bills signed Dockery and Langston Walker to those stupid contracts whose fault was it? There was not one team in the league other than the incompetent Bills who would have offered such largess to such mediocre talents. How does one write a CBA to account for an organizational incompetence?

 

 

 

This is a case where both sides at the table are trying to do a better job for the retired players.

The players decertified in 1987 after they went on strike and players started crossing picket lines.

 

As far as I know, the 59.5% number would still exist---the owners just want to up the exption from the previous 1 billion under the old CBA to 1.35 billion. That's it--out of 8.2 billion (after the deduction).

 

As for the renegotiated TV contracts, D Smith had no problem when they were signed--he thought it was the best thing in the world! He didn't seem to think they were suspiciously low....

[papazoid]

please...blaming Jerrah is silly......it's about the money.....it's all about the money.....it will continue to be about the money......

 

if the owners had made an offer that kept the money exactly the same......the players would have rolled and agreed with the owners on every single other issue !!

 

the players are simply hiding behind the other issues because they don't want to be perceived as being only about the money.

[JohnC]

The players want the "rookie money" to go to the veteran players. The NFL agreed to this.

 

This rookie salary issue is an issue both sides agree to. It basically affects the players at the top of the first round, maybe 15 players or so. How is it fair, for the owners and players, when a high draft pick who hasn't played yet get more money than Manning or Brady get? Even with a diminution of salary to the top tier draftees they will still be making a good deal. This is an issue that works for both sides of the table.

 

 

 

The players decertified in 1987 after they went on strike and players started crossing picket lines.

 

I'll go back to my original point. As it stands the owners have locked out the players. With a decertification or not the players would go back to work. It is the owners who have locked them out.

 

As far as I know, the 59.5% number would still exist---the owners just want to up the exption from the previous 1 billion under the old CBA to 1.35 billion. That's it--out of 8.2 billion (after the deduction).

 

Your math is very different from my math. When more is deducted before the percentage is applied then you get less.

 

As for the renegotiated TV contracts, D Smith had no problem when they were signed--he thought it was the best thing in the world! He didn't seem to think they were suspiciously low....

 

Where do you get your information from? You are absolutely wrong on this issue. The union took the matter to court and got a favorable ruling. It was the union who took the legal action to contest the owners' shenanigans on the TV deal. Do you think that at the time the owners negotiated the TV deal he was aware that the owners could have gotten more? Why in the world would Smith be agreeable to a deal in which TV money would go to the owners in a lockout situation and not to the players? Maybe at the time of the signing he wasn't aware of this nefarious aspect to the deal?

[papazoid]

please...blaming Jerrah is silly......it's about the money.....it's all about the money.....it will continue to be about the money......

 

if the owners had made an offer that kept the money exactly the same......the players would have rolled and agreed with the owners on every single other issue !!

 

the players are simply hiding behind the other issues because they don't want to be perceived as being only about the money.

 

here ya go....proof it was about the money:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940

[Mr. WEO]

This rookie salary issue is an issue both sides agree to. It basically affects the players at the top of the first round, maybe 15 players or so. How is it fair, for the owners and players, when a high draft pick who hasn't played yet get more money than Manning or Brady get? Even with a diminution of salary to the top tier draftees they will still be making a good deal. This is an issue that works for both sides of the table.

I agree.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll go back to my original point. As it stands the owners have locked out the players. With a decertification or not the players would go back to work. It is the owners who have locked them out.

The players walked away from the bargaining table at 4:45 PM last Friday. They decertified before 5 PM. The CBA expired at midnight, the lockout then followed the expiration of the CBA.

 

 

 

Your math is very different from my math. When more is deducted before the percentage is applied then you get less.

 

John, the expired CBA allowed for the players to receive a maximum or "total league revenue" after a $1 billion deduction for owner/league "expenses". Of course, they never, in any year of the 2006 CBA, got even close to 59.5% of total revenue. But the last deal the NFL had on the table was to increase the exemption to $1.35 million--regardless of the total revenue in the future. It gives the owners a buffer in case there was a down year (crazy, huh?) and revenues significantly dropped across the board. That's only 10 million of cap money per team per year. It did NOT prevent the cap from increasing anyway as long as revenues went up. It baffles me why the union wouldn't take this deal. They are guaranteed to make more money, as long as total revenues continued to rise. It was a good offer--with the rookie wage scale and the money for the retirees, it was as good as their previous deal in real terms (not imaginary cap maximums, which never exist league-wide).

 

 

 

 

Where do you get your information from? You are absolutely wrong on this issue. The union took the matter to court and got a favorable ruling. It was the union who took the legal action to contest the owners' shenanigans on the TV deal. Do you think that at the time the owners negotiated the TV deal he was aware that the owners could have gotten more? Why in the world would Smith be agreeable to a deal in which TV money would go to the owners in a lockout situation and not to the players? Maybe at the time of the signing he wasn't aware of this nefarious aspect to the deal?

So you're saying that D Smith didn't know the value of the original contracts, didn't know the value of the renegotiated contracts so he didn't bother wondering if the new contracts were a bit lower than they should have been? How on earth is that possible??

 

To qoute the league, quoting Smith:

 

"The television contracts that the union attacked today were agreed to during the worst economy in our lifetimes. Far from failing to maximize revenue, the contracts grew league revenue to fund higher player salaries and benefits. No wonder DeMaurice Smith said publicly this year, 'My hat's off to Roger Goodell. Television is locked up until 2014 to the tune of about $5 billion a year.'

 

I'm guessing he knew (just like Upshaw knew on the day the 2006 CBA was signed that the owners were going to end it early, that it was only a temporizing contract) all about it and was going to pull this ace in the hole out if he couldn't get a deal to his liking in future (current) negotiations---just like the owners got the network insurance just in case they couldn't get the deal they wanted in future (current) negotiations.

 

You seem to ignore tha fact that the 2006 CBA is history. The owners own their teams. The players are employees, not owners. That deal is gone--the contract has expired/

[MattM]

Looks like the players are now saying the owners "pulled a switcheroo" (aaahhh, the ole' switcheroo!)on them and that the owners last offer last week removed the "revenue share" element of player pay (i.e., player comp. would be a fixed cost and not rise with the growth in League revenue) which had been a fixture of prior negotiations up to that point.

 

"The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth.

 

"That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players - player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative.

 

Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo."

 

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/18/nflpa-response.ap/index.html

 

Might this not show the owners' true game is trying to keep all the upside of a growing League to themselves, rather than to stem allegedly declining profits?

[CosmicBills]

Looks like the players are now saying the owners "pulled a switcheroo" (aaahhh, the ole' switcheroo!)on them and that the owners last offer last week removed the "revenue share" element of player pay (i.e., player comp. would be a fixed cost and not rise with the growth in League revenue) which had been a fixture of prior negotiations up to that point.

 

"The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth.

 

"That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players - player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative.

 

Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo."

 

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/18/nflpa-response.ap/index.html

 

Might this not show the owners' true game is trying to keep all the upside of a growing League to themselves, rather than to stem allegedly declining profits?

Of course it does. Which has been the issue all along. It's about money. The owners are greedy SOBs and want more money. The players are asking to keep what they've gained (but they also only care about the money).

 

The Owners did not negotiate in good faith. The players didn't either. Both sides knew a lockout was inevitable. And they were right. But at the end of the day it's he said, she said. Both sides have their own stories. It's about who you choose to believe. I for one believe the players more than the owners who have been shown to be untrustworthy and clearly shown they're willingness to screw the fans over by forcing a lock out to line their own pockets rather than have an honest negotiation.

 

The players would be playing today, without a raise in pay. The owners will only play if they get a raise. That's the bottom line. But WEO doesn't want to admit that because he's more interested in being "right" than having an honest discussion about matters. But that's cool. It's his right.

[JohnC]

 

The players walked away from the bargaining table at 4:45 PM last Friday. They decertified before 5 PM. The CBA expired at midnight, the lockout then followed the expiration of the CBA.

 

There is no requirement to lock out the players, even with a decertification. Each side is chosing it's own tactics. So be it. The next step is in the legal arena. A judge will make a determination to issue an injunction against the lockout or not.

 

It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you or I are on. We both should want the judge to order the injunction and then "encourage" the squabbling parties to get back negotiating. That is also an outcome that the owners should desire, as they have recently stated.

 

John, the expired CBA allowed for the players to receive a maximum or "total league revenue" after a $1 billion deduction for owner/league "expenses". Of course, they never, in any year of the 2006 CBA, got even close to 59.5% of total revenue. But the last deal the NFL had on the table was to increase the exemption to $1.35 million--regardless of the total revenue in the future. It gives the owners a buffer in case there was a down year (crazy, huh?) and revenues significantly dropped across the board. That's only 10 million of cap money per team per year. It did NOT prevent the cap from increasing anyway as long as revenues went up. It baffles me why the union wouldn't take this deal. They are guaranteed to make more money, as long as total revenues continued to rise. It was a good offer--with the rookie wage scale and the money for the retirees, it was as good as their previous deal in real terms (not imaginary cap maximums, which never exist league-wide).

 

The multi-faceted deal you are alluded to was a last minute proposal that was put on the table while the other side was walking out. You make it sound as if the negotiations were on the verge of being completed. That is far from the case. The exlusion issue is not settled, no matter how much you claim that it is.

 

The added "just in case increase" in the excluded dollars before the percentage kicks in is offered in a scenario where the owners are making more money now in a very fragile economy. What happens when there is more discreationary $$$ floating around? The owners are going to certainly have a greater haul in a better economic climate.

 

Instead of making a "just in case proposal" why not wait for the economic climate for the businss to actually change (falter) before re-doing a deal that is working for everyone.

 

So you're saying that D Smith didn't know the value of the original contracts, didn't know the value of the renegotiated contracts so he didn't bother wondering if the new contracts were a bit lower than they should have been? How on earth is that possible??

 

To qoute the league, quoting Smith:

 

You can quibble about Smith saying this or that over the TV deal. It's pointless. The union took the owners to court over the treacherous deal and they won their case. At the time of the deal I'm sure that Smith was not aware that the owners could have negotiated a better deal for the players. Are you trying to suggest with a straight face that he would have been happy about a deal that shortchanged his members? There needs to be no further debate on this aspect of the issue because the judge has made a common sense determination on this matter. This issue is mostly settled. The judge still has to make a decision on how to handle the money that the networks were supposed to give the owners.

 

Let me remind you that when the deal was made and the terms of the TV deal were revealed that you jubilantly chortled how the union got out hustled and that they had no recourse. The Ronald Reagan appointed and republican judge has spoken on this matter. It is a settled matter. You need to move on with respect to this issue.

 

WEO, You need to let it go. I know you find it difficult to take when the peasants impertinently talk to the royal owners. The days of ruling by fiat are long gone. Just let it go. I know you have an ability to adapt to the changing world. Just let it go. LOL

Edited March 18, 2011 by JohnC

[JohnC]

You seem to ignore tha fact that the 2006 CBA is history. The owners own their teams. The players are employees, not owners. That deal is gone--the contract has expired/

 

WEO, What bothers royalists like you the most has little to do with the money issues. That is inconsequential. What drives you crazy is the thought that employees have the ability to collaborate on how a business is being run. In your world view you see the asylum being run by the inmates.

 

Eventually the owners and players are going to sign an agreement. The process is going to be very rancorous and turbulent. But it is going to get done. You are going to be disappointed because the knights in armor didn't totally vanguish the insolent and treasonous peasants.

Edited March 18, 2011 by JohnC

[Ramius]

Of course it does. Which has been the issue all along. It's about money. The owners are greedy SOBs and want more money. The players are asking to keep what they've gained (but they also only care about the money).

 

The Owners did not negotiate in good faith. The players didn't either. Both sides knew a lockout was inevitable. And they were right. But at the end of the day it's he said, she said. Both sides have their own stories. It's about who you choose to believe. I for one believe the players more than the owners who have been shown to be untrustworthy and clearly shown they're willingness to screw the fans over by forcing a lock out to line their own pockets rather than have an honest negotiation.

 

The players would be playing today, without a raise in pay. The owners will only play if they get a raise. That's the bottom line. But WEO doesn't want to admit that because he's more interested in being "right" than having an honest discussion about matters. But that's cool. It's his right.

 

Tough crap for the players. Pay cuts are occurring for employees of all walks of life across the board due to the economy. The players can deal with it. It doesn't matter what they got in the past, because there is no more CBA, as WEO said. And its not as if individual players are being asked to make pay cuts. They will all still make what they were before, and salaries will still rise on a yearly basis. They just won't rise as much as they were before, and there's nothing wrong with that. Happens all the time.

 

I'm all for going back to the pre-2006 conditions where there were fixed players costs (with fixed yearly increases) and not this % of revenues crap.

[CosmicBills]

Tough crap for the players. Pay cuts are occurring for employees of all walks of life across the board due to the economy. ...

That's a silly thing to say. The NFL has suffered no fall out from the economy. In fact, even in the greatest economic crisis of this country has faced since the great depression (caused by giant corporations like the men who run the NFL teams), the NFL has made record breaking revenues. It's flourished. So why should the people who made it flourish (the players) be forced to take a cut while the owners get a raise?

 

In reality, the owners are asking for a RAISE while CUTTING their employees' pay. So why is it okay for the owners to ask for a raise when "pay cuts are occurring for employees of all walks of life across the board due to the economy" but it's not okay for the players not to ask for a cut?

 

Doesn't make sense to me.

Edited March 18, 2011 by tgreg99

[Mr. WEO]

There is no requirement to lock out the players, even with a decertification. Each side is chosing it's own tactics. So be it. The next step is in the legal arena. A judge will make a determination to issue an injunction against the lockout or not.

 

It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you or I are on. We both should want the judge to order the injunction and then "encourage" the squabbling parties to get back negotiating. That is also an outcome that the owners should desire, as they have recently stated.

 

 

 

The multi-faceted deal you are alluded to was a last minute proposal that was put on the table while the other side was walking out. You make it sound as if the negotiations were on the verge of being completed. That is far from the case. The exlusion issue is not settled, no matter how much you claim that it is.

 

The added "just in case increase" in the excluded dollars before the percentage kicks in is offered in a scenario where the owners are making more money now in a very fragile economy. What happens when there is more discreationary $$$ floating around? The owners are going to certainly have a greater haul in a better economic climate.

 

Instead of making a "just in case proposal" why not wait for the economic climate for the businss to actually change (falter) before re-doing a deal that is working for everyone.

 

 

 

You can quibble about Smith saying this or that over the TV deal. It's pointless. The union took the owners to court over the treacherous deal and they won their case. At the time of the deal I'm sure that Smith was not aware that the owners could have negotiated a better deal for the players. Are you trying to suggest with a straight face that he would have been happy about a deal that shortchanged his members? There needs to be no further debate on this aspect of the issue because the judge has made a common sense determination on this matter. This issue is mostly settled. The judge still has to make a decision on how to handle the money that the networks were supposed to give the owners.

 

Let me remind you that when the deal was made and the terms of the TV deal were revealed that you jubilantly chortled how the union got out hustled and that they had no recourse. The Ronald Reagan appointed and republican judge has spoken on this matter. It is a settled matter. You need to move on with respect to this issue.

 

WEO, You need to let it go. I know you find it difficult to take when the peasants impertinently talk to the royal owners. The days of ruling by fiat are long gone. Just let it go. I know you have an ability to adapt to the changing world. Just let it go. LOL

 

 

WEO, What bothers royalists like you the most has little to do with the money issues. That is inconsequential. What drives you crazy is the thought that employees have the ability to collaborate on how a business is being run. In your world view you see the asylum being run by the inmates.

 

Eventually the owners and players are going to sign an agreement. The process is going to be very rancorous and turbulent. But it is going to get done. You are going to be disappointed because the knights in armor didn't totally vanguish the insolent and treasonous peasants.

John, your populist take on this is becoming comical. "peasants" "royalists". Come on! It's simply company owners and employees. Every compnay in the country is free to make as much money as it can. These employees are paid crazy money for what they otherwise did for free most of their lives--entertain themselves and others. Since the players don't share in the financial risk of the company, they don't get to share in it's profitablity. That's a pretty basic concept in this country. The players aren't owners in any way at all.

 

Also, the exemption would remain only $1.35 billion--even if there was 10, 15, 20 billion in revenue. So why would the players reject it?

 

As for the the "treachery" of the TV deal, yes, I am suggesting that Smith knew how these things are done--otherwise he would have asked immediately why the renegotiated contract value didn't increase.

[JohnC]

John, your populist take on this is becoming comical. "peasants" "royalists". Come on! It's simply company owners and employees. Every compnay in the country is free to make as much money as it can. These employees are paid crazy money for what they otherwise did for free most of their lives--entertain themselves and others. Since the players don't share in the financial risk of the company, they don't get to share in it's profitablity. That's a pretty basic concept in this country. The players aren't owners in any way at all.

 

Where we fundatmentally (respectfully) disagree is that I believe the players are also stakeholders in this entreprise. You don't see it that way. That's fine. That is the crux of the conflict between our views. That is not going to be resolved. But that is okay.

 

lso, the exemption would remain only $1.35 billion--even if there was 10, 15, 20 billion in revenue. So why would the players reject it?

 

The figures and terms of the excluded money you refer to are going to be negotiated. What the players give up will be balanced out by what the owners add in. That is part of the process. Imposing one's position doesn't work. You hash it out and come to a common ground. Both sides are using tactics that they feel give them leverage in the negotiation. Don't let it bother you. It is part of the theatrics of negotiation.

 

As for the the "treachery" of the TV deal, yes, I am suggesting that Smith knew how these things are done--otherwise he would have asked immediately why the renegotiated contract value didn't increase.

 

Who gives a dam what Smith knew or didn't know about the contrived TV deal. What counts is that he challenged the deal in court and won a resounding victory. Your position that Smith favored the deal makes absolutely no sense. Even if he did it is immaterial because he fought the deal in court and won. The TV issue is settled. Don't waste your efforts trying to analyze what was in Smith's head regarding the deal. It is a moot point because he took it to court. Common sense tells you that you don't challenge a position in court when you favor it. That is not only illogical, it is outright weird.

 

I'm simply pooped out on this topic. Everyone has different perspectives when observing an intense owner/labor conflict. The bottom line is that the parties have to work out a deal. I've said many times that there are no angels in this unseemly conflict. Let both sides posture and bluster trying to appeal for sympathy from the paying fanbase. When it gets done it gets done. I don't have anything further to add to this subject matter.

 

Howver, ff you want to talk about the draft my position is clear: Not getting a franchise qb in this draft when in position to do so would be another mistake made by this very laughable organization.

[rockpile]

It is hard to know if this report is accurate. Aside from this incident I see Jerry ruining the NFL for the average fan. His Taj Mahal of a stadium and pricing practices make it nearly impossible for the average family to attend games. There is a loss of understanding that the community also has a stake in the team.

 

It has been very difficult, if not nearly impossible, for the average family to attend an NFL game for a very long time. I had four children, so the choice was basically to take the family to a football game, tailgate, buy some souvenirs and come home, OR go tent camping for a week at a NY state park.

 

That was even back when end zone seats were about $20 each and a non-electric campsite was $10 a night.

 

Agreed - today Buffalo tickets are a bargain when compared to most of the league.

 

Since all of the people who are heading the "labor dispute" likely make more money in a season than I will make for the rest of my life, I have no pity on either.

 

As was said earlier, I enjoy watching NFL players in an NFL game. Go ahead and strike, I will learn to appreciate college football more.

 

The players who were screwed played BEFORE there was a player's union. Many of those idiots played because they enjoyed the game. Go figure!