Ongoing CBA discussions

[CRedskinsRule]

This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. Much like the JC threads that raged on and on, both sides find their arguments to be fully justified while the other side's argument is just not as compelling. Much like the JC arguments these get very personal for something that none of us will have much say over.

With that said,
In the courts the players are employees, not rock stars, not skin partially owned subsidiaries, and not partners. If they want to be treated like any of those things it will be in terms of negotiations and a CBA. They have chosen to take it to the courts and their they are employees under contract law and their claims are viewed in that light. I think they could win every legal battle and yet still lose when the final cba is written. Why, because no court is going to order an industry to pay over half their revenue to its employees, no court will mandate long term healthcare or benefits, and the players may find that open bidding and right to work arguments may benefit the mannings and bradys of the leagues, but don't think that that 53rd man on the roster will get vet min after three years of service, he will be replaced by an undrafted guy that will happily take 100grand for a year to prove his value.

I think the owners have weighed the impact of adverse lawsuits and even the threat of treble damages have not been enough to sway their mindset.

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

[RobH4413]

Thought I'd throw this up here.

I called into the Mike Wise show last week, and the topic was the CBA discussions. Relevant topic, so here ya go.

I jump in around the 8 minute mark.

CBS Podcast Player

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. Much like the JC threads that raged on and on, both sides find their arguments to be fully justified while the other side's argument is just not as compelling. Much like the JC arguments these get very personal for something that none of us will have much say over.

With that said,
In the courts the players are employees, not rock stars, not skin partially owned subsidiaries, and not partners. If they want to be treated like any of those things it will be in terms of negotiations and a CBA. They have chosen to take it to the courts and their they are employees under contract law and their claims are viewed in that light. I think they could win every legal battle and yet still lose when the final cba is written. Why, because no court is going to order an industry to pay over half their revenue to its employees, no court will mandate long term healthcare or benefits, and the players may find that open bidding and right to work arguments may benefit the mannings and bradys of the leagues, but don't think that that 53rd man on the roster will get vet min after three years of service, he will be replaced by an undrafted guy that will happily take 100grand for a year to prove his value.

I think the owners have weighed the impact of adverse lawsuits and even the threat of treble damages have not been enough to sway their mindset.

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

They are not under contract law because there is no contract. They under anti-trust law and it's everyman for himself against the NFL. Throughout history the players have won the court battles so what in the hell makes you think they won't this time around? The NFL will play ball because the players pay their bills.

[NC_Skins]

I want to admit a error I stated previously debated Slinging Sammy. He apparently is correct with the 59.5 of total revenue (after 1 billion cut from top) the players were to receive over the 6 year period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/sp...all/09nfl.html

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs.

The reason it's hard to win hearts is because of the perspective people choose to look at the situation. Most people look at this situation as your standard Employer/Employee situation, and it's far from being anything in that realm. The other thing is, people are blaming the players for the work stoppage. It's like they ignore the fact the OWNERS are doing the lock out and not the players. It's amazing how many people out there that don't' understand anything that's going on and just chooses a side.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

Do what? Seems the majority of the owners were satisfied with it seeing a 30-2 vote in favor.

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension - NFL - ESPN

"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."

"Some teams are contributing a little more than others," Redskins owner Dan Synder said. "This is really a win-win."