Ongoing CBA discussions

[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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

The NFL agreed to show five years of league-wide profitability data to the union -- and that the offer was rejected.
The NFL's proposal included:
• audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005 to 2009, based on individual club statements;
• the number of teams that have seen a shift in profitability in that span;
• an independent auditor to examine the data.

The information the NFLPA is asking for isn't even shared between the individual NFL teams. What the NFLPA is asking for is complete BS and has never been provided in any previous CBA negotiations. It's just a strawman by the NFLPA that has many (including you) buying it. Demaurice Smith knew where he was taking these negotiations, he just had to put up the front of negotiating in "good faith" so fans that are blindly loyal to the players would be sympathetic (read; buy his load of crap).

How the owners made their money is irrelevant. Should we talk about how Haynesworth made his money and how he performed in "good faith".

Not sure where you getting that from.

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.

Before you spout off, do some research, you're making yourself look bad:

Lockout, court cases put popular NFL on hold - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

From the link:
By Friday afternoon, when mediator George Cohen declared “no useful purpose would be served” by asking the parties to keep negotiating, it appeared the NFL and union were about $185 million apart on how much owners should get up front each season for certain operating expenses before splitting the rest of the revenues with players. That’s a far cry from the $1 billion that separated the sides for months.

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?

Again, do your homework or you FAIL....the players get almost 60% of revenue under the 2006 CBA.

NFL owners on verge of lockout with players in labor feud - The Denver Post

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.

You may want to read this. History is a great teacher.

National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Actually people did watch the replacement games, far better than the NFLPA "All Star" games.
- The TV contracts are already negotiated, if the NFL plays games it doesn't matter who is on the field.
- There will be revenue coming in, people will still go to games. Number may be down, but revenue will still come in....and with greatly reduced player costs the owners will likely make a better percentage of profit.
- With no union, anyone could play that wants to, scab, former NFL player, or previous NFLPA member who wants to cross the picket line.

Wait until the players miss a game check or two and you can reply to this old thread letting me know how right I was. Trust me the NFL isn't going anywhere.

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.

We're talking financial risks. And no one is forcing the players to take the risk of getting on the field.

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.

The Packers profits were, and that's documented fact. Other than being publicly held the Packers are not an unusual franchise financially

Finances Show Profit, But Troubling Trends Remain

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.

You haven't provided crap for documentation and what you did provide was wrong.....I guess you and the NFLPA have something in common.

[NC_Skins]

I apologize if I've come off harsh in any of my posts. It's not intended and I'll try to be more mindful of this going further.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The NFL agreed to show five years of league-wide profitability data to the union -- and that the offer was rejected.
The NFL's proposal included:
• audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005 to 2009, based on individual club statements;

I think we have heard from the players that this "data" you are referring to isn't anywhere sufficient enough. I remember D. Smith saying they got more information from Forbes than what they offered with this "audited data". I'm sorry, but when you are negotiating over a billion dollars, simply saying "trust me" will never cut it. It's either show the books, or nothing at all.

Speaking of Forbes, I'd like you to comment on what a business magazine has to say about the situation. Seems they don't share your view (or the owners) about the situation.

Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Demaurice Smith knew where he was taking these negotiations, he just had to put up the front of negotiating in "good faith" so fans that are blindly loyal to the players would be sympathetic (read; buy his load of crap).

I think D. Smith covers this whole"negotiating on good faith" and commitment to negotiating bit.

DeMaurice Smith's Rebuttal in the Rain - NYTimes.com

“I understand that there’s probably some things that Jeff Pash has to say. But this is the truth: We know that as early as March of 2009, from the discovery in the television case, that the National Football League engaged in a strategy to get $4 billion of television money – to lock out our fans, lock out our players – even if the games weren’t played.

“When I get ready to leave, I will leave each and every one of you in the media with what we call the decision tree, because this is exactly a document from the National Football League, that talks about how they were going go about securing television money, and I quote, ‘for cash during a lockout.’ So, with all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one party’s commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you … stick to the facts.”

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

How the owners made their money is irrelevant. Should we talk about how Haynesworth made his money and how he performed in "good faith".

It is when you are asking somebody to negotiate on faith. Also, good thing you brought up Haynesworth. The owners are complaining about rising player costs, yet owners are throwing stupid contract at idiots like Haynesworth. How is this a NFLPA problem? It would seem the owners need to spend their money better. (especially dan snyder)

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Again, do your homework or you FAIL....the players get almost 60% of revenue under the 2006 CBA.

NFL owners on verge of lockout with players in labor feud - The Denver Post

From the very article you posted.

The players' union documents say the 59.5 percent is a stretch.

So much for that 59% being fact.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You may want to read this. History is a great teacher.

National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Actually people did watch the replacement games, far better than the NFLPA "All Star" games.
- The TV contracts are already negotiated, if the NFL plays games it doesn't matter who is on the field.
- There will be revenue coming in, people will still go to games. Number may be down, but revenue will still come in....and with greatly reduced player costs the owners will likely make a better percentage of profit.
- With no union, anyone could play that wants to, scab, former NFL player, or previous NFLPA member who wants to cross the picket line.

So you think the NFL will survive based off of 3 scab games? You don't understand, take the talent away and the NFL will die. You can claim to be a fan of the team all you want, but you aren't going to pay 2-5k per year to watch inferior talent. Players come and go, but the talent level remains the same.

You mention scabs but you haven't commented on this. The owners are locking out the players so they can't use scabs. This isn't like the 80's strike when it was the players striking. This is the owners striking and locking out the players. If they play games, then they have to fulfill the contracts of the current players. Which means there will be no scabs.

So your theory about bringing in inferior talent for 2-3 years and it replenishing it with the upcoming college athletes is false. There would be no games played. No scabs. No nothing. The NFL would indeed die, and a new league would form with different investors willing to take the same deal as the current CBA.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Trust me the NFL isn't going anywhere.

It will if the talent goes.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

We're talking financial risks. And no one is forcing the players to take the risk of getting on the field.

There aren't really any more financial risks in the NFL now. It's a straight up cash cow. This isn't the 70's or 80s anymore.