BUFFALOTONE Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I got this from the ESPN insider around the league segment. This was written by Lenny P. Sorry if it was already posted. Its amazing these guys are like pendulums with there half-ass analysis. You think one of the could man up and say we were wrong about our coverage of the CBA and Wilson and Brown were spot on with not rushing this. • After last week's suggestion in this space that one of the sides will exercise the 2008 opt-out trigger in the recent extension to the collective bargaining agreement, which will make for a very short honeymoon for whomever succeeds Tagliabue, there was considerable response from NFL owners and high-ranking team executives. Several agreed with the assessment and questioned the wisdom of having endorsed the extension which, four months later, apparently doesn't look nearly as good to some owners in hindsight as it did in March. Too bad, guys, you voted for it. Well, at least 30 of you did. The lone dissenters, Ralph Wilson of Buffalo and Cincinnati's Mike Brown, were all but pilloried for suggesting that the extension was ram-rodded through and that they didn't understand much of it. Four months later, with many of the elements of the CBA still under debate (anyone got a copy yet of the "qualifiers" which are supposed to determine the expanded revenue sharing mechanism?), Wilson and Brown don't seem quite as detached as they were made out to be. There were a lot of low-revenue owners who talked tough going into the CBA negotiations. When it came time to vote, though, most of them folded. Four months later, a few clearly are second-guessing themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Who's Ralph Wilson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Wilson and Brown don't seem quite as detached as they were made out to be. 727958[/snapback] When the truth is finally realized, sadly it won't get nearly the play that the seniltiy thing got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 It's funny how one arm of the ESPN machine doesn't seem to know what the other is doing. ESPN radio and TV were both all over Ralph and the Bengals owner for speaking their minds, and making the usual smart a$$ remarks about Ralph's age. However they seem to have a short memory, since in your post below, they seem to be acting like this is some sort of revelation. It will be months before the long term ramifications of the agreement are known, if the deal can ever actually implemented in any real-world sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roscoeparrishfan Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 It made for a good T.V clip making fun of the old man, and thats what ESPN is all about. Who cares if he was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 ESPN started as the CNN of sports, and then somehow degenerated into the MTV. What we need it the C-SPAN of sports. It shows the games, it shows the highlights, it keeps you informed. Not "athletotainment" or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenews Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Who's Ralph Wilson? 727972[/snapback] new director of scouting and short term interior line development? However is unable to operate fax machine during weekdays and games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If Wilson stood up and opposed the CBA, he wouldn't have been criticized the way he was. The reason he was criticzed is because he called it "too complex", not unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If Wilson stood up and opposed the CBA, he wouldn't have been criticized the way he was. The reason he was criticzed is because he called it "too complex", not unfair. 728002[/snapback] Add to that the fact that he does sound senile when he speaks publicly. Nothing against the man, it's just a part of being in your upper-80s. Robert Kraft or Dan Snyder saying the CBA is confusing comes off completely differently than Ralph saying it's confusing. IIRC, a few years back, Ralph was the only owner who voted against holding the Super Bowl in NYC (contingent on the now-defunct Westside Stadium plans.) His reasoning wasn't that he was against a cold-weather SB, or a SB in NYC. He voted against it because he said everytime the owners review a site to be voted on as a future Super Bowl host, the research presented is thorough and the details are poured over. In the case of NYC, the commissioner and owners pushed the vote through without so much as a question asked. Ralph said that was b.s. and the normal protocol should be followed. I think he is still with it, but many times it does not come across that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If Wilson stood up and opposed the CBA, he wouldn't have been criticized the way he was. The reason he was criticzed is because he called it "too complex", not unfair. 728002[/snapback] Maybe he didn't say it was unfair because to say something a contract was unfair one would have to understand it first. Saying it was too complex, that he didn't understand it, wanted more time and thoght the deal was being forced through were all pretty accurate. What does it say about the other owners who apparently did not understand the contract but signed it anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I do not think thst folks are now realizing things were different than they thought they were. but simply have had the additional time to sort it out and pick their targets and now will use the leverage point built into the deal to try to get a better deal for themselves. The real deal is that the circumstances are exactly the same now as they were before. The players have the leverage to assert and obtain a majority of the total revenues and of the owners cannot deal with this, they can take their ball and go home, but the players will have a tough but reasonable chance of building a new version of pro football using the template of the reconfigured NFL. After the replacement player lockout of the mid 80s, the NFLPA was beaten so badly that they were more open to and left the options of continuing a system which gave a lionshare of the profits to the team owners OR they could threaten to decertify and by forcing the owners to bid for players in a truer free market essentially take their ball and go home. Rather than compete in a free market for player services, the team owners blinked and agreed to a CBA that established a partnership with the players within which they restrained free trade through policies such as the draft, barring access to the market for people below college graduation age, and a a variety of personal controls on controlled substances and observance of NFL rules like TD celebrations and clothing styles. The CBA development progressed from its initial deal where the workers recieved a % of the designated gross receipts which guaranteed stability of a product which could be sold to the TV networks and provide the workers with far more $ than they achieved prior to the decertification threat. Though by agreeing to split only a designated rather than a total gross, the team owners were still the majority partners, but the amount recieved by % of that designated gross exceeded the 52% number which led to the lockout and because of the greater wealth generated by the NFL led to much higher payments to the workers. The dynamic remains the same and finally under the new CBA with NFLP recieving 59.5% of the total revenue they are clearly the majority partners. However, it is a partnership and though within the rough and tumble modern world of talk radio histrionics and an increased in rudeness embodies in shows such as Jerry Springer, this is quite likely a negotiating tactic which the NFLPA can give significant $ to the team owners under the threat of reopening the deal and still clearly be the majority partners. Look for ongoing negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA over the CBA to issue a set of clarifiers which will deliver more largesse to the owners, but look for the small market teams to command the lionshare of that largesse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Bills fans who knew what was going on KNEW Ralph was right all along. All I needed to see what 54.2% and 59.5%, the former number being the previous percentage of total revenue going to the players and the former being the NEW percentage. That's over a 5% INCREASE! The owners said they wanted 56.4% while the players wanted at least 60%, and these so-called "bright businessmen" got played into accepted just 0.5% less. Morons! Ralph was a convenient target because he was LOUDLY (you may have missed it) complaining about the new deal and his attempt at humor was twisted to make it sound like among these "bright businessmen" who negotiated this "super" deal, he didn't know what was going-on because of his age. Morons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If Wilson stood up and opposed the CBA, he wouldn't have been criticized the way he was. The reason he was criticzed is because he called it "too complex", not unfair. 728002[/snapback] That is very unfair. Are you kidding me? The issue is the context of the question when Ralph answered "too complex". "Too complex" could have meant we need more time to review it and come to a consensus and not that it is over his head. That is how I understood the reports. The press was shameful in their treatment of Ralph. By the way, most of these owners could not understand this information on their own without first having their lawyers read it and interpret it for them. This could have taken days or weeks to sort out. Want proof? It is now starting to surface. If anything, this shows that Ralph is sharper than most of them. Isn't time that our society assign proper value to the aged? Hopefully that will be a lesson learned from this whole mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 It's just sad for ralph... He'll finally have his day in the HOF after he's dead, which is too bad. Us as fans know the truth, and i guess that's what matters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If Wilson stood up and opposed the CBA, he wouldn't have been criticized the way he was. The reason he was criticzed is because he called it "too complex", not unfair. 728002[/snapback] Too complex to have it shoved down his throat in an eleventh hour vote. Because of the complexity he wasn't able to determine the fairness of the plan. Can't decide on what you don't understand (outside of 28 owners). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronbaskin Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 As a "realist" allow me to say that Wilson was entirely correct in his original complaint. I have negotiated several labor agreements with, among others, ABC and the major Hollywood studios. There is no such creature as a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which can be thoroughly, or thoughtfully, scrutinized in the 45 minutes allotted to the NFL owners. Wilson and Brown were correct in voting against it for that reason alone. I won't haggle about the percentages because I believe workers (in this instance players) are entitled to whatever they can get from management. But, clearly, this deal was being ram-rodded because the majority owners feared a strike. What you may not realize is the television network contracts contain language requiring the league to indemnify them in the event of a strike. That could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars because the networks will no longer accept "scab" games as they once did. However, players stand to lose just as much--if not more--than the owners if there were to be a strike, so it was pretty much a game of "chicken" that saw the owners blink first. So, Wilson was not senile. The fools were the owners who put their signatures on the document without fully realizing what was in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I won't haggle about the percentages because I believe workers (in this instance players) are entitled to whatever they can get from management. But, clearly, this deal was being ram-rodded because the majority owners feared a strike. I don't take as much issue with the 59.5% figure per se as I do the fact that the owners were ONLY able to get the NFLPA to drop down by a measly 0.5% from their original position, while the NFLPA got the owners to cave to 3.3% MORE than they initially wanted to give. And that these allegedly amazing businessmen who worked SO hard to rake in millions from huge and wealthy populations ( ) thought this was a good deal, yet they would have to pay-out tens of millions of dollars to the lower revenue clubs because it was a bad deal for those clubs, thus making it a bad deal for them. But hey, it avoided a strike/lockout...for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I do not think thst folks are now realizing things were different than they thought they were. but simply have had the additional time to sort it out and pick their targets and now will use the leverage point built into the deal to try to get a better deal for themselves. The real deal is that the circumstances are exactly the same now as they were before. The players have the leverage to assert and obtain a majority of the total revenues and of the owners cannot deal with this, they can take their ball and go home, but the players will have a tough but reasonable chance of building a new version of pro football using the template of the reconfigured NFL. After the replacement player lockout of the mid 80s, the NFLPA was beaten so badly that they were more open to and left the options of continuing a system which gave a lionshare of the profits to the team owners OR they could threaten to decertify and by forcing the owners to bid for players in a truer free market essentially take their ball and go home. Rather than compete in a free market for player services, the team owners blinked and agreed to a CBA that established a partnership with the players within which they restrained free trade through policies such as the draft, barring access to the market for people below college graduation age, and a a variety of personal controls on controlled substances and observance of NFL rules like TD celebrations and clothing styles. The CBA development progressed from its initial deal where the workers recieved a % of the designated gross receipts which guaranteed stability of a product which could be sold to the TV networks and provide the workers with far more $ than they achieved prior to the decertification threat. Though by agreeing to split only a designated rather than a total gross, the team owners were still the majority partners, but the amount recieved by % of that designated gross exceeded the 52% number which led to the lockout and because of the greater wealth generated by the NFL led to much higher payments to the workers. The dynamic remains the same and finally under the new CBA with NFLP recieving 59.5% of the total revenue they are clearly the majority partners. However, it is a partnership and though within the rough and tumble modern world of talk radio histrionics and an increased in rudeness embodies in shows such as Jerry Springer, this is quite likely a negotiating tactic which the NFLPA can give significant $ to the team owners under the threat of reopening the deal and still clearly be the majority partners. Look for ongoing negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA over the CBA to issue a set of clarifiers which will deliver more largesse to the owners, but look for the small market teams to command the lionshare of that largesse. 728035[/snapback] Ah Ha!!!!! NOW I know who wrote the collective bargaining agreement!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 The reason he was criticzed is because he called it "too complex", not unfair. 728002[/snapback] This just in: the on-air "talent" at ESPN and their ilk have the same wonderlic scores as most of the players.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 This just in: the on-air "talent" at ESPN and their ilk have the same wonderlic scores as most of the players.... 728330[/snapback] What? They own an ilk? And it's got the same wonderlic score as them? ilk Golly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts