Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 All you know is what transpired. You clearly don't know what happened. Ok Confuscius. I've posted excerpts before, but this is what happened: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387218 Clearly this was a deal of expedience for the owners, who did not want a work stoppage and did not want, at that time, an uncapped year (Upshaw vowed never to agree to a cap again if that happened). Tags, the owners, Upshaw (according to Tags) all knew back then that the owners would opt out as soon as they could. No games were missed, TV contracts were extended, Upshaw died. If anyone truly claims the owners could have gotten the sweet deal they just squeezed out of an overmatched D. Smith from Upshaw--they are lying to themselves. It's total fantasy. The 2006 CBA was certainly not the deal they wanted, but they needed a deal and they knew it would only be for 3 years (essentially) and they would continue to make tons of money anyway. Also, if the 2006 went to to 2012 (its expiration date) and we had a lockout then what would you guys be talking about? If they didn't opt out, would you still be saying 2006 was such a bad deal for owners? Seems so far your only proof offered that it was such a bad deal was because the owners opted out early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) This is wrong and refuted by what the owners themselves have said. The only things you're semi-correct about is that they rushed into to "preserve labor peace" and they wisely included an opt-out clause. But even as you admitted, this caused them to accept a bad deal, from which to opt-out early. The bottom line is that it was a bad deal. Doesn't matter what excuse you give (and remember, "excuses are for losers"). If making more money under a new deal than under prior deals is such a bad thing then I would love to have someone negotiate a bad deal on my behalf. Edited July 23, 2011 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Ok Confuscius. I've posted excerpts before, but this is what happened: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387218 Clearly this was a deal of expedience for the owners, who did not want a work stoppage and did not want, at that time, an uncapped year (Upshaw vowed never to agree to a cap again if that happened). Tags, the owners, Upshaw (according to Tags) all knew back then that the owners would opt out as soon as they could. No games were missed, TV contracts were extended, Upshaw died. If anyone truly claims the owners could have gotten the sweet deal they just squeezed out of an overmatched D. Smith from Upshaw--they are lying to themselves. It's total fantasy. The 2006 CBA was certainly not the deal they wanted, but they needed a deal and they knew it would only be for 3 years (essentially) and they would continue to make tons of money anyway. Also, if the 2006 went to to 2012 (its expiration date) and we had a lockout then what would you guys be talking about? If they didn't opt out, would you still be saying 2006 was such a bad deal for owners? Seems so far your only proof offered that it was such a bad deal was because the owners opted out early. Look doc, it's plainly obvious to most everyone that the owners caved to Upshaw and that had they put the screws to the players then, like they're doing now, they'd have gotten themselves a far better deal, again like it appears they will now. The only fantasy is the one you've created, in which Upshaw was laughably more powerful than 32 NFL owners, who you've always sided with and claimed were far superior to the players. And yes, I and most people would also say that when you quit a deal, it means it's a bad deal for you, otherwise why quit it? Especially when doing so can potentially cost you hundreds of millions of dollars on top of it (i.e. if games are missed). If making more money under a new deal than under prior deals is such a bad thing then I would love to have someone negotiate a bad deal on my behalf. Yet they still opted-out of it. Why do you suppose they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Look doc, it's plainly obvious to most everyone that the owners caved to Upshaw and that had they put the screws to the players then, like they're doing now, they'd have gotten themselves a far better deal, again like it appears they will now. The only fantasy is the one you've created, in which Upshaw was laughably more powerful than 32 NFL owners, who you've always sided with and claimed were far superior to the players. And yes, I and most people would also say that when you quit a deal, it means it's a bad deal for you, otherwise why quit it? Especially when doing so can potentially cost you hundreds of millions of dollars on top of it (i.e. if games are missed). Yet they still opted-out of it. Why do you suppose they did? You can say the owners could have rolled Upshaw, if it makes sense to you and helps you be comfortable with your position, but if you read that article, there is nothing that suggests what you suggest (the ol' "pound sand") would have been successful. Upshaw had walked out and was celebrating an uncapped year--looking forward to it, actually. I'm sure the owners would have much rather been dealing with Smith back then but they weren't. I believe you understand this. Why quit the deal? Becuase it's the only deal available to keep the games going. They knew it was temporary and for a short term--the lockout insurance is proof they were preparing not to lose any game money if the next CBA negotiations ended in a lockout. In the end, it seemed like a tough pill to swallow, but it seems that their plan worked: the CBA functionally lasted 3 years, no games were missed, contracts were re-signed with happy networks, players and owners made unprecedented money and now..now the owners have gotten it ll back and in a 10 year deal to boot. Why do you have a problem with this??? Upshaw was not taking less than 60%. FInd me any evidence to the contrary. Smith was happy to cut it back to 48%--and he threw in a rookie pay scale! If you can't see the difference between Upshaw's union and this circus that Smith is embarrassing his players with now, you're not being honest with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 You can say the owners could have rolled Upshaw, if it makes sense to you and helps you be comfortable with your position, but if you read that article, there is nothing that suggests what you suggest (the ol' "pound sand") would have been successful. Upshaw had walked out and was celebrating an uncapped year--looking forward to it, actually. I'm sure the owners would have much rather been dealing with Smith back then but they weren't. I believe you understand this. Why quit the deal? Becuase it's the only deal available to keep the games going. They knew it was temporary and for a short term--the lockout insurance is proof they were preparing not to lose any game money if the next CBA negotiations ended in a lockout. In the end, it seemed like a tough pill to swallow, but it seems that their plan worked: the CBA functionally lasted 3 years, no games were missed, contracts were re-signed with happy networks, players and owners made unprecedented money and now..now the owners have gotten it ll back and in a 10 year deal to boot. Why do you have a problem with this??? Upshaw was not taking less than 60%. FInd me any evidence to the contrary. Smith was happy to cut it back to 48%--and he threw in a rookie pay scale! If you can't see the difference between Upshaw's union and this circus that Smith is embarrassing his players with now, you're not being honest with yourself. How do I prove something that never happened? Upshaw SAID he wasn't taking less, but the owners never called him on it. You see, that is the main difference between Upshaw and Smith, i.e. the owners standing firm, because of what happened last time. Again you're making the ridiculous claim that Upshaw had final say and/or that he pulled one over on 32 NFL owners (well, 30 owners). You can't say that and be honest with yourself, given all the time you've spent talking about how you side with the owners when they approved that 2006 CBA, because they're successful business men and are far smarter than any player. And Upshaw may have "welcomed" the uncapped year, but so too did the players...until they realized it wasn't near the bonanza they thought it would be. Proving Upshaw wasn't too bright. Or maybe it was all for show. But apparently it worked. You just can't give up the ghost that Ralph knew the 2006 CBA was a POS and the other owners didn't. I mean, doesn't it strike you as odd that Ralph was voted into the HOF after the owners opted-out of the CBA, and was instrumental in getting a better revenue sharing deal for small market teams in this new CBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 How do I prove something that never happened? Upshaw SAID he wasn't taking less, but the owners never called him on it. You see, that is the main difference between Upshaw and Smith, i.e. the owners standing firm, because of what happened last time. Again you're making the ridiculous claim that Upshaw had final say and/or that he pulled one over on 32 NFL owners (well, 30 owners). You can't say that and be honest with yourself, given all the time you've spent talking about how you side with the owners when they approved that 2006 CBA, because they're successful business men and are far smarter than any player. And Upshaw may have "welcomed" the uncapped year, but so too did the players...until they realized it wasn't near the bonanza they thought it would be. Proving Upshaw wasn't too bright. Or maybe it was all for show. But apparently it worked. You just can't give up the ghost that Ralph knew the 2006 CBA was a POS and the other owners didn't. I mean, doesn't it strike you as odd that Ralph was voted into the HOF after the owners opted-out of the CBA, and was instrumental in getting a better revenue sharing deal for small market teams in this new CBA? Doc, the proof that Upshaw wouldn't budge is that the owners voted nearly unanimously for the CBA, after 300 hours of negotiations went nowhere. Why didn't the owners just tell him to "pound sand"? Because they didn't want to miss games. Do yourself a favor--read that ESPN piece I linked. Ralph admitted that he didn't know enough about the CBA to vote for it. ANd he had abslolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing in that deal (it was Upshaw and owners like Kraft). And there is no evidence he was involved in any aspect of putting together this CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Doc, the proof that Upshaw wouldn't budge is that the owners voted nearly unanimously for the CBA, after 300 hours of negotiations went nowhere. Why didn't the owners just tell him to "pound sand"? Because they didn't want to miss games. Do yourself a favor--read that ESPN piece I linked. Ralph admitted that he didn't know enough about the CBA to vote for it. ANd he had abslolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing in that deal (it was Upshaw and owners like Kraft). And there is no evidence he was involved in any aspect of putting together this CBA. I assume you didn't read it, but the piece you linked basically says that Upshaw pulled one over on the owners, doc. All it keeps talking about is "one man:" Upshaw. One of the owners even said "Let's call his bluff," but Tagliqaboob, wanting to preserve his legacy, steered them away from that course. So it was really two men who got one over on the owners. What games were they going to miss? Potentially ones in 2008, which was TWO years later, since the original CBA was set to expire at the end of the 2007 season? And that in the interim the players would have had a lower salary cap and then the fools gold of the uncapped year, right? Yes I saw the BSPN sound bite portraying Ralph as a doddering old fool that they replayed over and over. I also saw the section of the remainder of the interview where he says "I think they got too much." And eventually the other owners agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstealer Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Mark Gaughan is reporting that Ralph Wilson worked very hard to make sure revenue sharing was part of the agreement. Is the improved revenue sharing agreement a nod towards Ralph for having the foresight about the 2006 agreement? Ralph does his best work behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Ralph admitted that he didn't know enough about the CBA to vote for it. ANd he had abslolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing in that deal (it was Upshaw and owners like Kraft). And there is no evidence he was involved in any aspect of putting together this CBA. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Thursday night that the new deal does include a supplemental-revenue sharing system. A supplemental revenue system, aimed at helping lower-revenue teams, was added to the previous deal only after intense lobbying by Bills owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. ---Mark Gaughan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Ralph does his best work behind the scenes. That's what she said…. er… actually no. That's not what she said. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I assume you didn't read it, but the piece you linked basically says that Upshaw pulled one over on the owners, doc. All it keeps talking about is "one man:" Upshaw. One of the owners even said "Let's call his bluff," but Tagliqaboob, wanting to preserve his legacy, steered them away from that course. So it was really two men who got one over on the owners. What games were they going to miss? Potentially ones in 2008, which was TWO years later, since the original CBA was set to expire at the end of the 2007 season? And that in the interim the players would have had a lower salary cap and then the fools gold of the uncapped year, right? Yes I saw the BSPN sound bite portraying Ralph as a doddering old fool that they replayed over and over. I also saw the section of the remainder of the interview where he says "I think they got too much." And eventually the other owners agreed. U didn't read beyond that sentence, because it was followed by this: "You don't know this guy," Tagliabue interjected wearily. "He's serious." Upshaw, 60, was quietly convinced he held the hammer this time. In 23 years as the NFLPA's chief, he had weathered far worse than this: the debilitating strike of 1987, the decertification of the union two years later -- a time when he often didn't cash his paychecks because he knew they would bounce -- and a bitter and protracted legal battle that eventually brought the players free agency in 1993. So Tags "steered" 30 owners into a "bad deal"? How did he do this? Here's what he did--he told him what they already knew: they didn't want to miss any games. They didn't want a future with no salary cap (not for just a year, doc). He told them to take this deal (temporarily) keep games going, renegotiate contracts. What Ralph thought was "too much" turned out to be far less than what he feared--the players never came close to 60% of revenues. Getting out of the CBA has allowed them to, today--not in 2012 or 2013---get a 10 year CBA with major concessions from the union on revenue and a rookie pay scale. None of this was possible in 2006. Again, what is your problem with the way this has played out? All evidence points to the impetus for revenue sharing in 2006 was Upshaw. The convincing of the other owners was left to Kraft, Mara and others. The only input Ralph had is his constant public moaning of how hard it is for him to make a buck in Buffalo. Is that the same Mark Gaughan who reported that Ralph would "sell to the highest bidder"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 U didn't read beyond that sentence, because it was followed by this: So Tags "steered" 30 owners into a "bad deal"? How did he do this? Here's what he did--he told him what they already knew: they didn't want to miss any games. They didn't want a future with no salary cap (not for just a year, doc). He told them to take this deal (temporarily) keep games going, renegotiate contracts. What Ralph thought was "too much" turned out to be far less than what he feared--the players never came close to 60% of revenues. Getting out of the CBA has allowed them to, today--not in 2012 or 2013---get a 10 year CBA with major concessions from the union on revenue and a rookie pay scale. None of this was possible in 2006. Again, what is your problem with the way this has played out? All evidence points to the impetus for revenue sharing in 2006 was Upshaw. The convincing of the other owners was left to Kraft, Mara and others. The only input Ralph had is his constant public moaning of how hard it is for him to make a buck in Buffalo. Is that the same Mark Gaughan who reported that Ralph would "sell to the highest bidder"? The owners did not know what they were doing, period. Here is another one who freely admitted it. “We made a mistake, no question about it,” Giants co-owner John Mara told Mike Lupica of ESPN 1050 in New York, via SportsRadioInterviews.com. “And we deserve criticism for making that mistake. The players, themselves, have acknowledged that they made a great deal back in 2006 and there were a number of us, myself included, who didn’t fully understand what we were doing in 2006. We understood pretty quickly, within about a year after that. At the end of the day, we’re businessmen who love football and we want to get a deal done that makes sense for our businesses and that’s good for the game and allows the game to grow. There is a deal there to be made that would be fair for both sides.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The owners did not know what they were doing, period. Here is another one who freely admitted it. This deal, all involved knew, had an expiration date of May 2008. The owners have variously explained that they didn't know what they were doing and/or were losing money. It's what you say when the public wants to know why you are backing out of a deal (that you planned all along to back out of). It's all PR--just like D Smith's righteous indignation Friday night ("there is no deal!") followed by his inevitable order (on SUnday morning) to his players to sign the deal just as it was ratified by the owners. This is how the game is played. 30 owners don't, together, suddenly make a "mistake" after hearing about the unions final offer for weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 This deal, all involved knew, had an expiration date of May 2008. The owners have variously explained that they didn't know what they were doing and/or were losing money. It's what you say when the public wants to know why you are backing out of a deal (that you planned all along to back out of). It's all PR--just like D Smith's righteous indignation Friday night ("there is no deal!") followed by his inevitable order (on SUnday morning) to his players to sign the deal just as it was ratified by the owners. This is how the game is played. 30 owners don't, together, suddenly make a "mistake" after hearing about the unions final offer for weeks. PR is saying in public we didn't understand it, then about a year later we realized it was a bad deal? That's total nonsense. You just ignore more and more evidence that they really didn't know what they were doing. The opt out clause was put in for both sides. The players had it, too. The owners didn't know when they signed it they would opt out. The reason Ralph said he didn't understand it was because they kept changing it, and he was given a very short window to decide on something he and his advisers didn't have time to parse. He said I'm not agreeing to this, we don't even know what is in it because it was different from a lot of the stuff they were discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 PR is saying in public we didn't understand it, then about a year later we realized it was a bad deal? That's total nonsense. You just ignore more and more evidence that they really didn't know what they were doing. The opt out clause was put in for both sides. The players had it, too. The owners didn't know when they signed it they would opt out. The reason Ralph said he didn't understand it was because they kept changing it, and he was given a very short window to decide on something he and his advisers didn't have time to parse. He said I'm not agreeing to this, we don't even know what is in it because it was different from a lot of the stuff they were discussing. “We knew it’d be terminated at the earliest possible date,” Tagliabue said. “We knew it wasn’t sustainable long-term.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) "We knew it'd be terminated at the earliest possible date," Tagliabue said. "We knew it wasn't sustainable long-term." Tags also said that Upshaw knew it, too. Except NFLPA's lawyer who was in the negotiations said Upshaw never said that. And that Tags never said it to Upshaw.Talk about CYA PR in retrospect talk. Edited July 24, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 The owners did not know what they were doing, period. Here is another one who freely admitted it. “We made a mistake, no question about it,” Giants co-owner John Mara told Mike Lupica of ESPN 1050 in New York, via SportsRadioInterviews.com. “And we deserve criticism for making that mistake. The players, themselves, have acknowledged that they made a great deal back in 2006 and there were a number of us, myself included, who didn’t fully understand what we were doing in 2006. We understood pretty quickly, within about a year after that. At the end of the day, we’re businessmen who love football and we want to get a deal done that makes sense for our businesses and that’s good for the game and allows the game to grow. There is a deal there to be made that would be fair for both sides.” Game, set, match. And notice there's no mention of how "the situation changed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Tags also said that Upshaw knew it, too. Except NFLPA's lawyer who was in the negotiations said Upshaw never said that. And that Tags never said it to Upshaw.Talk about CYA PR in retrospect talk. Maybe the owners could have said "we were bargaining in bad faith when we accepted a suboptimal deal that we planned on dumping at the earliest allowable time." It would have been honest. Instead they now want us to believe they (30 of them) suddenly lost their wits that one day and only realized soon after that a horrible mistake had been made. They also said that they were losing or would lose money under that CBA but that notion was roundly thrashed on this site ("show us the books!!"). Same guys are now geefully pointing out Mara's "we were crazy to sign that deal" stuff now. You've been played. Why do you think the NFLPA would say Upshaw never said that? Hmmmmm. Anyway, they made a tough, but, as we see now, a sound business decision at that time. Everyone benefitted. Now they have a long term contract (containing things they couldn't dream of in the last CBA) and a weakened union. Not sure if this was some sort of plan (Tags himself said what he said--he wasn't misquoted) but it certainly worked out very well for owners, fans (even players). I'm still looking for the "bad" in 2006. I, forgot--they opted out so it must have been bad. Whereas if they let it go to maturity in 2012 it would not have been a bad deal? Yeah, that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Maybe the owners could have said "we were bargaining in bad faith when we accepted a suboptimal deal that we planned on dumping at the earliest allowable time." It would have been honest. Instead they now want us to believe they (30 of them) suddenly lost their wits that one day and only realized soon after that a horrible mistake had been made. They also said that they were losing or would lose money under that CBA but that notion was roundly thrashed on this site ("show us the books!!"). Same guys are now geefully pointing out Mara's "we were crazy to sign that deal" stuff now. You've been played. Why do you think the NFLPA would say Upshaw never said that? Hmmmmm. Anyway, they made a tough, but, as we see now, a sound business decision at that time. Everyone benefitted. Now they have a long term contract (containing things they couldn't dream of in the last CBA) and a weakened union. Not sure if this was some sort of plan (Tags himself said what he said--he wasn't misquoted) but it certainly worked out very well for owners, fans (even players). I'm still looking for the "bad" in 2006. I, forgot--they opted out so it must have been bad. Whereas if they let it go to maturity in 2012 it would not have been a bad deal? Yeah, that makes sense. Stop embarrassing yourself here doc. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Stop embarrassing yourself here doc. Really. If you can't answer the questions, I'll lay off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts