I swear Gene Upshaw is retarded....

[CircleTheWagons]

No, he's a tard for comparing apples to oranges as a poster said a few posts ago, and not realizing that while the number of the percentage may be lower, the ACTUAL amount of money received by the players is much higher. The players are getting a smaller piece of a much bigger pie. But tardshaw cant see that and is causing a sticking point.

 

Think of it this way. We'll give you 64% of the average salary of a factory worker. I'll take 56% of the salary of a doctor. I'll get more money overall, but at least you can make fun of me because you are getting a higher percentage than i am.

619462[/snapback]

 

Analogies suck

 

But what if it turned out that a doctor's "salary" was only about 50% of what he actually earned in income and the definition of salary has changed since you negotiated 56%. Are you still happy with 56%?

[JDG]

No, he's a tard for comparing apples to oranges as a poster said a few posts ago, and not realizing that while the number of the percentage may be lower, the ACTUAL amount of money received by the players is much higher. The players are getting a smaller piece of a much bigger pie. But tardshaw cant see that and is causing a sticking point.

 

 

The only 'tard here is the guy who thinks that a highly-paid professional at the top of his profession is a complete idiot, and who can't recognize a negotiating tactic to try and get more money when he sees one.

 

JDG

[Ramius]

Analogies suck 

 

But what if it turned out that a doctor's "salary" was only about 50% of what he actually earned in income and the definition of salary has changed since you negotiated 56%.  Are you still happy with 56%?

619486[/snapback]

 

In a round about way, you've hit my point. Lets keep the doctor analogy going. Right now i am getting 64% of the doctors salary, which is $100,000. Now all this time, lets say the doctor is getting income from prescriptions that get filled in his name, and from companies that pay him to use their medical equipment. Say that adds up to another 50,000 per year. Now we agree to open my cut to all of the doctors income, not just his salary, but he wants to lower my take to 56%. So my choices are:

 

A. 64% of his salary,a larger cut of a smaller pool, or 64% of 100,000 = $64,000 per year

or

B. 56% of all his income, a smaller cut of a larger pool, or 56% of 150,000 = $84,000 per year

 

So yes the players are taking less of a percentage, but the owners are giving them a bigger pool of money to take their cut from.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

"These go to 11."

[sfladave]

"These go to 11."

619531[/snapback]

Pages?

[Ramius]

The only 'tard here is the guy who thinks that a highly-paid professional at the top of his profession is a complete idiot, and who can't recognize a negotiating tactic to try and get more money when he sees one.

 

JDG

619523[/snapback]

 

Wow, is that b!tch smacking you received over in the losman completion percentage thread still bothering you? I've never said it wasnt a negotiation tactic, because of course it is. I was saying Tardshaw is a moron for claiming that his players are accepting less, when in reality they are getting a ton more money.

 

Does he have a right to negotiate for as much $ as possible? Sure, thats what negotiations are for. But claiming that 57% repersents a lowering of money is completely false when the players are going to see 1.5 billion MORE dollars over the life of the CBA. Its not my fault you apparently cant understand simple math either.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

In a round about way, you've hit my point. Lets keep the doctor analogy going. Right now i am getting 64% of the doctors salary, which is $100,000. Now all this time, lets say the doctor is getting income from prescriptions that get filled in his name, and from companies that pay him to use their medical equipment. Say that adds up to another 50,000 per year. Now we agree to open my cut to all of the doctors income, not just his salary, but he wants to lower my take to 56%. So my choices are:

 

A. 64% of his salary,a larger cut of a smaller pool, or 64% of 100,000 = $64,000 per year

or

B. 56% of all his income, a smaller cut of a larger pool, or 56% of 150,000 = $84,000 per year

 

So yes the players are taking less of a percentage, but the owners are giving them a bigger pool of money to take their cut from.

619525[/snapback]

 

I work for a doctor. He belongs to partnership with 3 other doctors. The partnership employs 100 people. 3 of the partners purchased a beautiful new medical arts building downtown. 90 people work there. I work for the 4th partner, outside of town. 10 of us work here.

 

Years ago the partners decided to use the total amount of all of the money they made as a basis to determine the limit that each partner could pay their help. The 3 partners downtown were doing so well, that the limit was high enough to hire 30 people each. My boss has the same limit, but can't afford to pay more than 10 of us. Luckily, the partners had set a minimum amount that each doctor would have to spend in order to maintain a professional staff. But each day, more people leave our area, and my doctor is laying off half of us. I guess we can run the office with 5 people. We're at the minimum now, and if the doctor continues to lose patients, we'll have to close the office and we'll all be out of work.

 

I guess I should be happy for those 90 people downtown, working in that fine building, but I'm not. Boy, I can still remember how happy we were when we were told how much money the partners could spend on us. Oh well, time to get myself some more Seconal using this stupid ass's perscription pad.

[sfladave]

I work for a doctor.  He belongs to partnership with 3 other doctors.  The partnership employs 100 people.  3 of the partners purchased a beautiful new medical arts building downtown.  90 people work there.  I work for the 4th partner, outside of town.  10 of us work here.

 

Years ago the partners decided to use the total amount of all of the money they made as a basis to determine the limit that each partner could pay their help.  The 3 partners downtown were doing so well, that the limit was high enough to hire 30 people each.  My boss has the same limit, but can't afford to pay more than 10 of us.  Luckily, the partners had set a minimum amount that each doctor would have to spend in order to maintain a professional staff.  But each day, more people leave our area, and my doctor is laying off half of us.  I guess we can run the office with 5 people.  We're at the minimum now, and if the doctor continues to lose patients, we'll have to close the office and we'll all be out of work. 

 

I guess I should be happy for those 90 people downtown, working in that fine building, but I'm not.  Boy, I can still remember how happy we were when we were told how much money the partners could spend on us.  Oh well, time to get myself some more Seconal using this stupid ass's perscription pad.  

619679[/snapback]

 

Difference being is that your doctor was not required to keep the same number of people on staff regardless of the income of that particular office.

 

Perhaps the 4 doctors would have negotiated a different deal between themselves and between their employees.

[Pyrite Gal]

Does he have a right to negotiate for as much $ as possible? Sure, thats what negotiations are for. But claiming that 57% repersents a lowering of money is completely false when the players are going to see 1.5 billion MORE dollars over the life of the CBA. Its not my fault you apparently cant understand simple math either.

619597[/snapback]

 

The negotisting tactic which Upshaw used was to compare not what the players receive over the life of the contract offered versus a comparison to (some non-existent) extension of the current CBA over 6 years, but compares what the players get today to the next two years under the offered deal.

 

Upshaw's specific words:

 

Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year," Upshaw said.

 

While Upshaw's cut on this is clearly a negotiating tactic and thus not the full truth, his comparison to what the players have agreed to get in the next two years to what the players will get over the first two years of the offered deal and not as you do comparing it to what they would get over the life of the CBA seems to be at least a ratiional comparison even if it is simply putting the deal in the best light for his negotiating.

 

Even to the extent he is not fully accurate, his calculations seem more rational and accurate than the comparison you are making. He compares two years to two years while you compare 6 years of receipts to what they would get under 2 years of the current deal and a ficttitious four year's of additional agreement that does not exist.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Difference being is that your doctor was not required to keep the same number of people on staff regardless of the income of that particular office.

No, it isn't about the 'number of people on staff', it's about the ability of a few partners to pay up to a defined limit to retain a competent staff while a fourth fails to do so.

 

Not sure what you mean here.

 

Perhaps the 4 doctors would have negotiated a different deal between themselves and between their employees

You missed it, man. You see, the 'partners' represent the NFL owners, and the 'staff' represents...

 

Oh Fug it! Forget it! I quit this thing!

Where's my friggin' Seconal?

Rickeeeeeee!!!!!

[Ramius]

The negotisting tactic which Upshaw used was to compare not what the players receive over the life of the contract offered versus a comparison to (some non-existent) extension of the current CBA over 6 years, but compares what the players get today to the next two years under the offered deal.

 

Upshaw's specific words:

 

Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year," Upshaw said.

 

While Upshaw's cut on this is clearly a negotiating tactic and thus not the full truth, his comparison to what the players have agreed to get in the next two years to what the players will get over the first two years of the offered deal and not as you do comparing it to what they would get over the life of the CBA seems to be at least a ratiional comparison even if it is simply putting the deal in the best light for his negotiating.

 

Even to the extent he is not fully accurate, his calculations seem more rational and accurate than the comparison you are making.  He compares two years to two years while you compare 6 years of receipts to what they would get under 2 years of the current deal and a ficttitious four year's of additional agreement that does not exist.

619684[/snapback]

 

Ok, i see your point, but that percentage "decrease" the union would be forced to take would give the players some $577 million more next year. I dont know how the players could ever get by with taking that kind of hit.

[krazykat]

Take another look at this before getting your panties all up in a wad.

618770[/snapback]

Too late!

 

It's wedgy city baby!

[JDG]

Wow, is that b!tch smacking you received over in the losman completion percentage thread still bothering you?

 

You've got to be crazy.

 

I've never said it wasnt a negotiation tactic, because of course it is. I was saying Tardshaw is a moron for claiming that his players are accepting less, when in reality they are getting a ton more money.

 

Does he have a right to negotiate for as much $ as possible? Sure, thats what negotiations are for. But claiming that 57% repersents a lowering of money is completely false when the players are going to see 1.5 billion MORE dollars over the life of the CBA. Its not my fault you apparently cant understand simple math either.

619597[/snapback]

 

So, rather than thinking that Upshaw is retraded, isn't the more likely explanation that Upshaw is intentionally trying to understate Management's offer as much as possible so as to win the largest possible offer for his clients?

 

Indeed, given that the NFL's representatives agreed to send a 59.5% proposal to the vote of the owners, doesn't this suggest that Upshaw's tactics in fact worked brilliantly?

 

JDG

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Indeed, given that the NFL's representatives agreed to send a 59.5% proposal to the vote of the owners, doesn't this suggest that Upshaw's tactics in fact worked brilliantly?

It will only work "brilliantly" if they accept it, which I bet they won't. Jerry Jones has already gone on record saying he doesn't like it, and if he doesn't like it, the lower revenue teams won't like it, thus no deal.

[2003Contenders]

You've got to be crazy.

So, rather than thinking that Upshaw is retraded, isn't the more likely explanation that Upshaw is intentionally trying to understate Management's offer as much as possible so as to win the largest possible offer for his clients?

 

Indeed, given that the NFL's representatives agreed to send a 59.5% proposal to the vote of the owners, doesn't this suggest that Upshaw's tactics in fact worked brilliantly?

 

JDG

619947[/snapback]

 

 

I give Upshaw some kudos for driving such a hard bargain -- but the end result could be that he overstates his position to the point where no deal gets done, which is bad for EVERYBODY, considering how great things have been under the existing CBA.

 

We all know that the owners are going to flat turn this 59.5% proposal down too. The only reason it got to this point was that Tagliabu and the NFLPA wanted to reach SOME form of closure and at least present the owners with SOMETHING to vote on. Over the next couple of days, the owners are likely going to work together to come up with their own new counter-offer. The last we heard was that they had gone up to 56.5% from their original 56% offer. Meanwhile, Upshaw has been willing to go down to 59.5% from his original 60%. Thus, to date both sides have only budged by .5%. If the owners come back with just another .5%, bringing it up to 57% for their counter-offer, then things could go back and forth for another couple weeks.

 

The longer this goes on, the more tiresome it will become -- and the more PR damage it will cause. I'm still optimistic that something will get done, but I wonder what kind of a bad taste it will leave when it's all said and done.

[JDG]

Well, I think the fact that the NFL reps even tentatively accepted the 59.5% figure is a huge victory for the Union. We'll see what happens with the owners today, but it definitely helps the Union's PR battle if the NFL Owners are the last ones walking away from the table. Its not like the NFL Owners won't make many millions in profits under the deal they have in front of them.

 

And besides, if the NFL Owners do turn down the deal, while the next two-three years will be rough for the players, in a few years the players will be freed of the salary cap - which is what they want. Its up to the Owners to offer them a sweet enough current deal to make it not worthwhile for the players to pay the price of the next two-three years to get to a non-salary-cap era.

 

JDG

[MadBuffaloDisease]

The salary cap is here to stay, JDG. While there MAY not be one in 2007, it will surely come back after that. And there could also be a lockout/work stoppage in 2008. And losing a year of football pay is NOT a smart thing to do for the players. Hell even if Upshaw holds fast at the 59.5% and the FA period begins and players sign deals that are less than what they could have been, he'll have lost.

[JDG]

The salary cap is here to stay, JDG.  While there MAY not be one in 2007, it will surely come back after that.  And there could also be a lockout/work stoppage in 2008.  And losing a year of football pay is NOT a smart thing to do for the players.  Hell even if Upshaw holds fast at the 59.5% and the FA period begins and players sign deals that are less than what they could have been, he'll have lost.

620205[/snapback]

 

Completely disagree.

 

One thing I have learned about labor relations is that while it is possible to occasionally negotiate a creative provision that is ahead of the industry, it is always a bad sign for that provision if 10 years later no other firm in the industry has adopted it. In this case, the NFL and NFLPA went out on a limb by agreeing to a salary cap in 1994, but 12 years later that position is looking a lot lonelier after neither MLB nor the NBA have come anywheres close to adopting such a provision. I'm not even sure if the NHL has a comparable salary cap provision - though the NHL is essentially a minor league sport at this point.

 

So, let's say that the Owners vote down the NFLPA final offer, and we proceed to the uncapped year of 2007. The NFLPA has made it clear from Day 1 that if we get to 2007, they will simply refuse to agree to a salary cap in the future. At this point 2008 promises to be a disaster for all sides. Yes, the NFL was somewhat successful at using replacement players in 1987, but its a different world now. The TV deals are much bigger now than then. The NFL also was not a year-round sport in 1987. Fantasy Football was at a tiny fraction of its current interest. The Owners would stand to lose a lot of money in 2008 even with replacement players, let alone with a work stoppage.

 

And how would this all resolve? At some point, as the losses from work stoppage/replacement players mount, both sides would likely agree to binding arbitration. And given that a salary cap is hardly a "standard industry practice" at this point, I find it highly unlikelye that a binding arbitrator would impose a salary cap.

 

The simple truth of the matter is that the NFL Owners are earning gazillions of dollars in both revenues and capital gains on the basis of the players, and are trying to share as little of those gazillions with the players as possible. The players have some very smart people who have surely calculated how much money the owners would spend on salaries in a truly free market with no draft, no franchise tags, and no salary cap. The Redsksins raked in what, $200 million in 2004 - anyone seriously believe that Danny Snyder wouldn't spend something close to that amount on salaries to try and win a Super Bowl? The players know that they'd have to pay a price in 2006, 2007, and 2008 to get to that point - but they know where that money will be. Its up to the Owners to decide to share enough of their gazillions with the players up front to make that price not worth paying for the players.

 

JDG

[MadBuffaloDisease]

If the players don't agree to a salary cap, there will be a work stoppage. And unlike the other 3 major leagues, there IS no football league outside of the U.S. that even comes CLOSE to paying what NFL wages pay. So Upshaw can bluster all he wants, the salary cap is NOT going away.

[JDG]

If the players don't agree to a salary cap, there will be a work stoppage.  And unlike the other 3 major leagues, there IS no football league outside of the U.S. that even comes CLOSE to paying what NFL wages pay.  So Upshaw can bluster all he wants, the salary cap is NOT going away.

620481[/snapback]

 

You act like the MLB and NBA players were going to Europe and Japan during their work stoppages..... Let's face it, the Owners don't make a lot of money during a work stoppage either..... The players could *definitely* gamble that the end game of a work stoppage would be binding arbitration and no salary cap.

 

JDG