Ongoing CBA discussions

[SolidSnake84]

Holy Shit guys i didnt believe this would actually happen.

Millionaires vs Billionaires i guess. Now there is the lawsuit by Tom Brady, Manning, and Drew Brees against the owners. The players union has decertified, and in general all hell is breaking loose.

What happens next? can a court order lift the lockout as some have suggested? Does the NFL win the appeal? Is there going to be an absolute total work stoppage??

[freddyg12]

This HAD to happen I think. Even if a deal is made via mediation & the suits are dropped, both sides needed to take this step. The owners got themselves in this by agreeing to this deal in 06. The players don't want to give up something for no apparent reason. The courts, if only the threat, are the only way to decide this.

I am not unhappy about it. I think it could lead to some creative solutions & avert some bad ideas, like the 18 game season. If we come out of this w/the same CBA & an 18 game season, it will really have been a wasted opportunity IMO.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

This HAD to happen I think. Even if a deal is made via mediation & the suits are dropped, both sides needed to take this step. The owners got themselves in this by agreeing to this deal in 06. The players don't want to give up something for no apparent reason. The courts, if only the threat, are the only way to decide this.

I am not unhappy about it. I think it could lead to some creative solutions & avert some bad ideas, like the 18 game season. If we come out of this w/the same CBA & an 18 game season, it will really have been a wasted opportunity IMO.

Can I get an Amen?!

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

This HAD to happen I think. Even if a deal is made via mediation & the suits are dropped, both sides needed to take this step. The owners got themselves in this by agreeing to this deal in 06. The players don't want to give up something for no apparent reason. The courts, if only the threat, are the only way to decide this.

I am not unhappy about it. I think it could lead to some creative solutions & avert some bad ideas, like the 18 game season. If we come out of this w/the same CBA & an 18 game season, it will really have been a wasted opportunity IMO.

If this "HAD" to happen, then why The 24 hour and 7 day extensions? This did not HAVE to happen. A deal could have been worked out if both sides wanted to work one out. The problem is, they didn't. They wanted to give the appearance of wanting a deal. I'm disgusted with both sides, but mostly the players side, specifically demaurice smith. the guy strikes me as a total d bag.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If this "HAD" to happen, then why The 24 hour and 7 day extensions? This did not HAVE to happen. A deal could have been worked out if both sides wanted to work one out. The problem is, they didn't. They wanted to give the appearance of wanting a deal. I'm disgusted with both sides, but mostly the players side, specifically demaurice smith. the guy strikes me as a total d bag.

You crystallized my thoughts eloquently, especially the D. Smith part. Here's the guy's bio. This explains a lot. The NFL players really f-ed up bringing this guy on. D. Smith is taking this to his comfort zone, the courts. That isn't how businesses function profitably.

Attorney Smith elected to succeed Upshaw as NFLPA executive director

Let me add a few things;
- The NFLPA walked away from the table, not the owners.
- A majority of the issues were agreed upon (mostly in the NFLPAs favor), and the owners came way off their initial additional $ 1B "off-the-top". The final amount in dispute was more like $ 185M.
- This was stated by NFLPA folks and I heard it this morning from NFLPA team reps. The contention is that the players aren't going to agree to ANY "salary reduction" or additional amount off-the-top unless the owners completely open the books of all 32 NFL teams.

I've heard little but rhetoric and name-calling from the NFLPA side, the owners were very specific as to what was offered. It sure sounds like the owners put a very fair deal on the table and the NFLPA is simply trying to gain leverage in the courts. F the NFLPA, F D. Smith.

I don't want to hear that the NFL players are "partners" in the business of the NFL. They are employees, very talented, very well paid employees, but still employees. For any of you siding with the players, let me ask the following:
- If the economy hits another downturn are the NFL players going to give back some of their salaries to off-set the reduced profitability of the teams?
- If a small market team that is seeing reduced profits is the NFLPA going to provide some sort of compensation for that team.
- If a new stadium is built and that particular team is having issues making the payments, is the NFLPA going to make concessions to help.

We all know damn well the answer to all those questions is flat out "NO". How about the players realize that close to 60% off revenue is way too much and the NFL offered a fair deal. This is all about D. Smith not wanting to look like he lost ground in his first negotiation with the NFL. No question if he went back to the NFL players and sold this deal to them they would take it and we'd be back in business. BHA is 100% right D. Smith is simply a douche-lawyer with an NFL sized ego. He needs to realize his job is not to squeeze every last dime he can out of the NFL owners. He needs to look out for the players and also protect the golden-goose business that puts food on the table for thousands of people.

[NC_Skins]

Do any of you people actual pay attention to facts or do you chose a side and just stick your head in the sand in hopes to ignore any of the real facts going on? It bewilders me that people are still spouting off rhetoric when the facts are plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You crystallized my thoughts eloquently, especially the D. Smith part. Here's the guy's bio. This explains a lot. The NFL players really f-ed up bringing this guy on. D. Smith is taking this to his comfort zone, the courts. That isn't how businesses function profitably.

Yeah, because those asshats representing the NFL corporation are any better? To me, many of the issues with players stem from pure jealousy on the amounts they make and the ability to have leverage in their work place. Get over it, we all would like that ability but the fact is we are expendable, they are not.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Let me add a few things;
- The NFLPA walked away from the table, not the owners.

Newsflash: The OWNERS opted out of the CBA, NOT the players. Also, the players walked away with the owners showing no signs of giving them the info they wanted. They had no option. Did you not read this thread? If you had, you'd notice where I posted the federal mediator said this.

"The parties have not achieved an overall agreement, nor have they been able to resolve the strongly held competing positions that separated them on core issues, mediator George Cohen said. "No useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time."

So why stay at the table when it's obvious nothing was going to get done. Why keep prolonging something you know the sides aren't going to agree. The NFLPA isn't going to take a 1 billion in salary cut without seeing books. End of Story. You don't negotiated business deals on "trust me". You base them on numbers and facts. Both of which the NFL does not want to disclose.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- A majority of the issues were agreed upon (mostly in the NFLPAs favor), and the owners came way off their initial additional $ 1B "off-the-top". The final amount in dispute was more like $ 185M.

I can't repeat this enough. 1696 players are splitting 4 billion and 32 owners are splitting 5 billion. Are you seriously still siding with the owners?...lol Mind boggling. Yeah, sure looks like it's in favor of NFLPA. /sarcasm off

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- This was stated by NFLPA folks and I heard it this morning from NFLPA team reps. The contention is that the players aren't going to agree to ANY "salary reduction" or additional amount off-the-top unless the owners completely open the books of all 32 NFL teams.

The owners broke the current CBA and are claiming of declining profits. The burden is on THEM to back up that claim. The only way you can do that is showing your books. Not writing two figures down on a sheet of paper and telling the players to "trust them".

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I've heard little but rhetoric and name-calling from the NFLPA side, the owners were very specific as to what was offered. It sure sounds like the owners put a very fair deal on the table and the NFLPA is simply trying to gain leverage in the courts. F the NFLPA, F D. Smith.

People hear what they want to hear.

"[Richardson] was extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton," a source said. "[Richardson] was the only person on either side who was contentious. Everybody else was respectful. They might have said, 'I disagree with your point,' but at least they were respectful. [Richardson] was not."

Apparently, Richardson was particularly sarcastic when Manning started to talk about players' safety. At one point, Richardson evidently said, "What do you know about player safety?"
Jerry Richardson Insults Peyton Manning, Drew Brees: Panthers Owner Rips Star Quarterbacks

It may seem like a "fair deal" to average people that have no concept of this money or leverage. The reality of it is when the owners ask them to take a billion dollar cut, you better have numbers to back it up. It's funny you complain about the NFLPA trying to gain leverage, but you totally ignored the leverage the NFL owners have been trying to get since 2006.

1) Tried to get exempt from rules governing monopolies via Supreme Court (they failed)

2) Signed TV contract enabling them to get paid even during lock out. (they failed)

So you have no problem with them getting leverage long before they even opted out of the CBA, but have issue with NFLPA gaining leverage as it's LAST recourse? Hey, don't let those things called facts get in your way though.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I don't want to hear that the NFL players are "partners" in the business of the NFL. They are employees, very talented, very well paid employees, but still employees. For any of you siding with the players, let me ask the following:

This is where most of the ignorance comes into play when discussing this topic. I'm sorry, but do you understand that the NFL has a product/service? That product/service ARE the players. They aren't normal employees. Normal employees would be the trainers, the team secretary and PR guy, and even the coaches. Why? Because you can replace them easily without the talent level dropping off, which is the whole reason the NFL exists. The talent level. Grasp that concept and then you'll be able understand the situation in it's entirety. We don't watch the games to see Fed Ex field. We don't watch the games to see the hot dog vendor. We don't watch the games to see David Donovan give legal representation. We don't watch the games to see Mike Shannahan call time outs. We watch the game because of the PLAYERS. The only reason the NFL exists.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- If the economy hits another downturn are the NFL players going to give back some of their salaries to off-set the reduced profitability of the teams?

Are the owners going to give back some of their salaries to reduce the costs for fans? Nope. Why would you expect them to do the same for owners.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- If a small market team that is seeing reduced profits is the NFLPA going to provide some sort of compensation for that team.

Is Dan Snyder going to lower ticket costs when his team does shitty? Nope. Is he going to raise them if we make the playoffs? Yep. Do you think they care? Nope.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- If a new stadium is built and that particular team is having issues making the payments, is the NFLPA going to make concessions to help.

Show me where a team is having difficulties making stadium payments. I will give you season tickets in club level for life if you can prove this.

Also, you do realize the owners strong arm the community into providing them with tax cuts and funding their new stadiums at the expense of the tax payers. It's either that or they threaten to leave.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This is all about D. Smith not wanting to look like he lost ground in his first negotiation with the NFL. No question if he went back to the NFL players and sold this deal to them they would take it and we'd be back in business. BHA is 100% right D. Smith is simply a douche-lawyer with an NFL sized ego. He needs to realize his job is not to squeeze every last dime he can out of the NFL owners. He needs to look out for the players and also protect the golden-goose business that puts food on the table for thousands of people.

If you had the slightest idea or any facts to back up anything you said, then you might have a point but it's obvious you don't like D. Smith for whatever reason and have chosen the side of the owners. I also see a lot of resentment in average joes over the players. The sheer jealousy of them having leverage (and salaries) in a way they could never dream of makes the average fan foam at the mouth. The NFL exists soley because of the service those players provide. They are the product. You on the other hand, had no leverage or bargaining chip to hold your employers accountable. You act is if they are asking for more. That isn't the case. They want the system to remain the same, it's the owners who are asking for me. I suggest you recognize that main fact.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Do any of you people actual pay attention to facts or do you chose a side and just stick your head in the sand in hopes to ignore any of the real facts going on? It bewilders me that people are still spouting off rhetoric when the facts are plain and simple.

Look in the mirror and repeat....

Yeah, because those asshats representing the NFL corporation are any better?

Actually, the two point men are Roger Goodell and D. Smith. Here's Goodell's NFL background:

Goodell's career in the NFL began in 1982 as an administrative intern in the league office in New York under then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle – a position secured through an extensive letter-writing campaign to the league office and each of its then 28 teams. In 1983, he joined the New York Jets as an intern, but returned to the league office in 1984 as an assistant in the public relations department.[12]
In 1987, Goodell was appointed assistant to the president of the American Football Conference (Lamar Hunt), and under the tutelage of Commissioner Paul Tagliabue filled a variety of football and business operations roles, culminating with his appointment as the NFL's Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in December 2001.
As the NFL's COO, Goodell took responsibility for the league's football operations and officiating, as well as supervised league business functions. He headed NFL Ventures, which oversees the league's business units, including media properties, marketing and sales, stadium development and strategic planning.
Goodell was heavily involved in the negotiation of the league's current collective bargaining agreement. He had worked extensively with Tagliabue since the latter became commissioner in 1989.[3] He has played an extensive role in league expansion, realignment, and stadium development, including the launch of the NFL Network and securing new television agreements as well as the latest collective bargaining agreement with the National Football League Players Association.

Here's Smith's NFL (also labor negotiation background): ......

So in the sense of experience in the situation at hand who's the asshat?

To me, many of the issues with players stem from pure jealousy on the amounts they make and the ability to have leverage in their work place. Get over it, we all would like that ability but the fact is we are expendable, they are not.

To me, people who make statements like this have no valid, substantive argument and are reduced to speculation and rhetoric. If my issue with the players stemmed from jealousy of the amount of money they make and leverage, I'd be a lot more jealous of the billionaire who holds the keys to the kingdom than the well-paid millionaire whose career spans an average of 3-4 years.

Newsflash: The OWNERS opted out of the CBA, NOT the players. Also, the players walked away with the owners showing no signs of giving them the info they wanted. They had no option. Did you not read this thread? If you had, you'd notice where I posted the federal mediator said this.

The owners were out-leveraged into a bad deal in 2006 and are working to correct that. They have agreed to provide detailed financial info to the NFLPA, but not a line-by-line accounting for the last ten years for each team. No way in hell as an NFL owner would I ever agree to that....and the players know this as well. Smith's strategy was to take this to court all along. The NFLPA had an option...how about bargain in good faith and realize there will be some level of "give" in a negotiation. Everything I've heard (directly from NFL player reps) is that they are unwilling to give any salary relief to the owners unless they get full and open disclosure...which again they know the owners won't give.

So why stay at the table when it's obvious nothing was going to get done. Why keep prolonging something you know the sides aren't going to agree. The NFLPA isn't going to take a 1 billion in salary cut without seeing books. End of Story. You don't negotiated business deals on "trust me". You base them on numbers and facts. Both of which the NFL does not want to disclose.

see above and my last post. The latest NFL offer had a gap of approx. $ 185M to bridge with the players, not $ 1B. The NFLPA "took their ball and went home" because they seek leverage in the courts.

I can't repeat this enough. 1696 players are splitting 4 billion and 32 owners are splitting 5 billion. Are you seriously still siding with the owners?...lol Mind boggling. Yeah, sure looks like it's in favor of NFLPA. /sarcasm off

Get your number rights, under the current CBA the owners are only getting in the area of 42% of the NFL "pie" yet they take all the financial risk.

It may seem like a "fair deal" to average people that have no concept of this money or leverage. The reality of it is when the owners ask them to take a billion dollar cut, you better have numbers to back it up.

It seems like a "fair deal" to anyone with an ounce of common sense who isn't blindly in the players corner.

It's funny you complain about the NFLPA trying to gain leverage, but you totally ignored the leverage the NFL owners have been trying to get since 2006.
1) Tried to get exempt from rules governing monopolies via Supreme Court (they failed)
2) Signed TV contract enabling them to get paid even during lock out. (they failed)
So you have no problem with them getting leverage long before they even opted out of the CBA, but have issue with NFLPA gaining leverage as it's LAST recourse? Hey, don't let those things called facts get in your way though.

#2 is a business deal with the networks. What's wrong with a business negotiating a deal that is in their interest. #1 is trying to keep this negotiation out of the courts' hands and in the realm of a negotiation, not doing business under a court order. My problem is the NFLPA planning as their strategy to settle this in the courts rather than through negotiation.

This is where most of the ignorance comes into play when discussing this topic. I'm sorry, but do you understand that the NFL has a product/service? That product/service ARE the players. They aren't normal employees. Normal employees would be the trainers, the team secretary and PR guy, and even the coaches. Why? Because you can replace them easily without the talent level dropping off, which is the whole reason the NFL exists. The talent level. Grasp that concept and then you'll be able understand the situation in it's entirety. We don't watch the games to see Fed Ex field. We don't watch the games to see the hot dog vendor. We don't watch the games to see David Donovan give legal representation. We don't watch the games to see Mike Shannahan call time outs. We watch the game because of the PLAYERS. The only reason the NFL exists.

Here's where condescention boomerangs and smacks back in the face. The NFL is far more than the current members of the NFLPA, it's more than what's on the field this upcoming season. The current players can be replaced and the talent level would be back to where it is today within 3-4 years. Would it take a couple more years to find the next Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson, possibly. But the NFL will go on, it's fans will still be there and they come to watch their team not specific players. Especially in the era of Free Agency folks are used to players switching teams. Don't overestimate the value of this current crop of players....and don't think there won't be those who cross the picket line. There were many before who did.

Are the owners going to give back some of their salaries to reduce the costs for fans? Nope. Why would you expect them to do the same for owners.

Because if the players truly want to be "partners" then they should be prepared to share in the risk.

Is Dan Snyder going to lower ticket costs when his team does shitty? Nope. Is he going to raise them if we make the playoffs? Yep. Do you think they care? Nope.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Show me where a team is having difficulties making stadium payments. I will give you season tickets in club level for life if you can prove this.

As the NFLPA says, "show me". When you show your ability to give me season tickets in club level for life, I'll spend some time researching this.

Also, you do realize the owners strong arm the community into providing them with tax cuts and funding their new stadiums at the expense of the tax payers. It's either that or they threaten to leave.

Again, irrelevant to this discussion. But if the community doesn't feel having the team is worth the tax cuts then don't give themn what they want. No court steps in to decide if a team stays or goes in a particular city.

If you had the slightest idea or any facts to back up anything you said, then you might have a point but it's obvious you don't like D. Smith for whatever reason and have chosen the side of the owners. I also see a lot of resentment in average joes over the players. The sheer jealousy of them having leverage (and salaries) in a way they could never dream of makes the average fan foam at the mouth. The NFL exists soley because of the service those players provide. They are the product. You on the other hand, had no leverage or bargaining chip to hold your employers accountable. You act is if they are asking for more. That isn't the case. They want the system to remain the same, it's the owners who are asking for me. I suggest you recognize that main fact.

Actually it's you who appears to be lacking in understanding of the situation and facts and appear to be blindly siding with the players over the "greedy owners". I would suggest you ask yourself why an owner of a business (even the NFL) would shoulder all the expenses, take all the risks, and give over 58% of the total revenue to the employees.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The owners were out-leveraged into a bad deal in 2006 and are working to correct that. They have agreed to provide detailed financial info to the NFLPA, but not a line-by-line accounting for the last ten years for each team. No way in hell as an NFL owner would I ever agree to that....and the players know this as well. Smith's strategy was to take this to court all along. The NFLPA had an option...how about bargain in good faith and realize there will be some level of "give" in a negotiation. Everything I've heard (directly from NFL player reps) is that they are unwilling to give any salary relief to the owners unless they get full and open disclosure...which again they know the owners won't give.

Sorry bro, but you don't negotiate over the table about 1 billion dollars on "good faith" or "trust me". If you make the claim of losing profits, you better be prepared to back it up to the fullest. I don't blame the NFLPA for requesting everything. Not their fault the owners are shady and don't want people to see how much they are making or foolishly spending.

The Phone Slamming King: How Snyder Communications made Dan Snyder rich, 1997-1999 ... rich enough to buy the Washington Redskins

These are owners that have made money crookedly and you expect them now to be honest? Gullible much?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

see above and my last post. The latest NFL offer had a gap of approx. $ 185M to bridge with the players, not $ 1B. The NFLPA "took their ball and went home" because they seek leverage in the courts.

Not sure where you getting that from.

Smith Responds To Offers - ESPN Video - ESPN

Listen to D. Smith responds to Parish video. He says the NFL wants them to write them a check for 500 million the first year and escalates up to 1 billion in the final year. So I have no idea about that 185 million you are referring to. Sounds like smoke being blown up your people's asses.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Get your number rights, under the current CBA the owners are only getting in the area of 42% of the NFL "pie" yet they take all the financial risk.

Do what? Last time I checked, the total revenue in the NFL is 9 billion. The owners get 1 billion off the top for expenses. They then share the revenue 50/50. Where are you getting your numbers from?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

#2 is a business deal with the networks. What's wrong with a business negotiating a deal that is in their interest. #1 is trying to keep this negotiation out of the courts' hands and in the realm of a negotiation, not doing business under a court order. My problem is the NFLPA planning as their strategy to settle this in the courts rather than through negotiation.

Hey, they are using their leverage just like the NFL tried to use it on them. Had they got the 4 billion from TV revenue during this lockout, they would have held all the leverage. Now it's a even playing field. The problem with the illegal contract is that the NFL was supposed to be doing contracts in the interests of both the players and themselves. Hence why they aren't getting any of the cash now. Guess the court system doesn't agree with you (or them) at all.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The NFL is far more than the current members of the NFLPA, it's more than what's on the field this upcoming season. The current players can be replaced and the talent level would be back to where it is today within 3-4 years. Would it take a couple more years to find the next Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson, possibly. But the NFL will go on, it's fans will still be there

LOLOLOLOL. Probably the funniest post of all. You realize the owners can't bring in scabs. The owners are locking the players out, not the other way around. This isn't a player strike. The NFL wouldn't survive 2 years. How many people watched the NFL back when scabs played? Nobody. Would TV hand out 4 billion a year for scabs? Nope. The sole reason people watch the NFL is because the talent level is the best in the world. Take into account these things if this lockout remained:

1) They have no revenue coming in (TV contracts, Tickets, parking, merchandise, vendors, ad sponsors).....all gone.

2) They'd still have to pay maintenance/expenses/taxes/etc on their current infrastructure.

3) There would be no union to represent players so no future pro-player would work for them besides scabs.


Also, once the NFL closed shop, new investors would arise and form a new league to bring that talent over. That would become the new NFL and the league the future college kids go to. Your theory of the NFL would survive is laughable at best.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Because if the players truly want to be "partners" then they should be prepared to share in the risk.

Pathologist says Waters' brain tissue had deteriorated - NFL - ESPN
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/sp.../06worker.html
John Mackey: From The NFL To Dementia - CBS Evening News - CBS News
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sp...0dementia.html
Marshall's torments not likely to fade - USATODAY.com

Nah, they don't share any risks at all. Nope.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

As the NFLPA says, "show me". When you show your ability to give me season tickets in club level for life, I'll spend some time researching this.

In other words, you can't show (or prove) to me that the NFL owners profits are declining. Hey, I guess that makes 2 parties who can't. You and the Owners. I'm not the one making the claim, you are. (as are the owners) I think you fail to understand how the "burden of proof" works. It falls on the person making the claim.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I would suggest you ask yourself why an owner of a business (even the NFL) would shoulder all the expenses, take all the risks, and give over 58% of the total revenue to the employees.

Again with the wrong numbers. Can you document anything you are saying? I'm providing sources to all my stuff, and you haven't backed one statement up with any facts. Hey, I guess that's how negotiating with you and the owners work. Just take your word on it. Also, there really are no financial risks for NFL owners these days. If this were the 80's then you might have a point, but the NFL is a revenue monster. Even a monkey running a team can profit.