Court Cancels Mediation, Settlement Negotiations Continue

[WestCoastSkinsFan]

I don't care who "wins" as long as both sides agree and I get football.

[MTK]

Keeping the lawyers out will be the key to progress | ProFootballTalk

[MTK]

Originally Posted by WestCoastSkinsFan

I don't care who "wins" as long as both sides agree and I get football.

True, and in the end the fans are the real winners in this.

[FRPLG]

My read is that possibly both sides have figured out that a decision from the 8th either way basically puts the season in serious jeopardy. Whoever loses is going to both a) lose almost all their leverage and b) be forced to essentially either give up or take it all the way. I don't doubt both sides anticipate the other isn't willing to cave all the way so they therefore have to think the other side is willing to kill the season. Maybe both sides are simply scared that the other is really "crazy girlfriend". Either way real negotiations, without lawyers, is the only way this ever is going to get resolved. Court decision or not. Might as well do it now before the golden goose is totally shot.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well the NFLPA offered settlement as an option in the past, and the owners rejected. Though I believe this a different sort of settlement

The NFL also offered what nearly every sane person beleives was a reasonable offer, atleast reasonable enough to merit countering... And smith balked and called it the worst deal in the history of sports. It seems likely that smith returned to negotiations due to building pressure from the players whos interests he was supposed to be representing the whole time.

In the end, I believe a deal needs to get done before the ruling next week. I think any deal reached after the ruling would be horribly one-sided and short lived, with another lockout by the owners or a strike by the players within 5 years. The only way we get a long term deal now is if both parties recognize they need eachother and work out a deal they all can live with. Neither side needs to "win." the most important thing is that no one feels they "lost."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The NFL also offered what nearly every sane person beleives was a reasonable offer, atleast reasonable enough to merit countering... And smith balked and called it the worst deal in the history of sports. It seems likely that smith returned to negotiations due to building pressure from the players whos interests he was supposed to be representing the whole time.

In the end, I believe a deal needs to get done before the ruling next week. I think any deal reached after the ruling would be horribly one-sided and short lived, with another lockout by the owners or a strike by the players within 5 years. The only way we get a long term deal now is if both parties recognize they need eachother and work out a deal they all can live with. Neither side needs to "win." the most important thing is that no one feels they "lost."

Your opinion, but you're entitled

[NLC1054]

After all this, I don't see De Smith being head of the NFLPA much longer. He's bungled the handling of this whole situation so badly and has acted too much like a lawyer. Which I guess I can't blame him, because that's all he is.

I think the players (as in the actual players and not the PA) and the owners meeting without lawyers (except De Smith, but it seems the players and the owners did most of the talking) is the best thing possible. All lawyers want to do is litigate. It's what they're good at.

Negotiations face to face with one another encourages more trusts and will make both sides feel like the other isn't out to screw them.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

After all this, I don't see De Smith being head of the NFLPA much longer. He's bungled the handling of this whole situation so badly and has acted too much like a lawyer. Which I guess I can't blame him, because that's all he is.

I think the players (as in the actual players and not the PA) and the owners meeting without lawyers (except De Smith, but it seems the players and the owners did most of the talking) is the best thing possible. All lawyers want to do is litigate. It's what they're good at.

Negotiations face to face with one another encourages more trusts and will make both sides feel like the other isn't out to screw them.

I hope smith isn't done as head of pa. Someone has to lookout and fight for the players. Although I understand people feel the lawyers are dragging things they are not out of the loop. I'm sure everything is documented and given to them after the meetings. I'm also sure both parties are prepped by their lawyers before each meeting. Basically no final agreement will be reached without a lawyers validation. And it would be stupid any other way.

[freddyg12]

I don't know enough to have an opinion of D. Smith aside from seeing that he has cool hats. I think you have to acknowledge that on both sides this was a major transition w/new leadership. We took for granted that Upshaw & Taglabue had developed a working relationship over many years.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

I don't know enough to have an opinion of D. Smith aside from seeing that he has cool hats. I think you have to acknowledge that on both sides this was a major transition w/new leadership. We took for granted that Upshaw & Taglabue had developed a working relationship over many years.

This.

If anyone thought this was going to be an easy process going in they were sadly mistaken.

Negotiations are often ugly and have their high and low points. Especially when both parties haven't been though the process before as you mentioned.

Once the dust settles and there's a new CBA in place, it will help set the tone for future negotiations and I think history will look back on this with a more positive note if they can avoid missing any games and reach a deal that makes sense for everyone.

[CRedskinsRule]

If D Smith holds the line tough enough, and keeps the players together while mixing in enough leadership to get a new deal in place, then he deserves to be the union head, but, the litigation route clearly was his baby, and if in the end the players are forced into a bad deal (that's not meaning taking a less %, but just an overt deal favoring the owners) because the litigation failed to deliver then he ought not see another day as head of the Association.

[MTK]

Upshaw went the litigation route against the league, decertified the union, and also dragged the players through the '87 strike. Just saying D. Smith isn't exactly blazing any new trails here.

[Longtimefan]

I never thought I would live to see the day when "this" would be what you'd have to go through for the sake of a simple game. It's gotten old already.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I never thought I would live to see the day when "this" would be what you'd have to go through for the sake of a simple game. It's gotten old already.

Well, it's not a simple game to the people truly involved in this

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Your opinion, but you're entitled

It appeared to me to be a reasonable offer, and as BHA said, merited at least a counter-offer. It seemed to be a "split the baby" kind of offer with several concessions to the players.

Am I missing something? Are you of the opinion that it was a bad offer or one that was just being made as a sop to public opinion and, if so, why?

Really, I am just trying to understand why it didn't merit at least a counter-offer. You may have covered it in earlier posts and, if so, just point me to them.