Ongoing CBA discussions

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

Was hooskins talking about the fans? It may be a luxury to them, but this isn't about them

[CRedskinsRule]

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?

I believe only on whether they can be locked out

[CRedskinsRule]

Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an interview with Yahoo

SC: We're talking about 15 minutes after the NFLPA sent in the paperwork to decertify, so the lockout's on everybody's minds. I've talked to a lot of players about this recently, and I always ask the same question — what is the message you want to get out to the people who love the game and are tired of hearing all the labor talk?

AP: We're business-minded, also. It's not just fun and games. A lot of football players, whether it's Sunday or Monday night — we're out there on the field, competing, hitting each other. But people don't see everything else behind it. It's a job for us, too — every day of the week. We're in different states, sometimes thousands of miles away from our families and kids, and a lot of people don't look at it like that. All some people see is, 'Oh, we're not going to be around football.' But how the players look at it … the players are getting robbed. They are. The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that…

SC: It's nothing that I haven't heard from other players, believe me.

AP: It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.' There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we're not all on the same page — I don't know. I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done.

But this crazy idea about an 18-game season … I'm sure they want more entertainment and more revenue, but we're not going to see a pinch of that (the increased revenue), and it's just the business we're in.

SC: It seems to most of the players that if the owners had nothing to hide financially, and if the current business model was as unsustainable as they claim, they'd have no trouble opening the books and showing audited profit and loss per team. Is that your impression?

AP: Exactly! It's like … 'Well, show us.' We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information. Why not? Obviously, there's a lot to hide -- these guys are professionals, and they're maximizing what they do. But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it'll be right out there for everyone to see. It's a ripoff — not just for the players, but for the people who work at the concession stands and at the stadiums. The people working at the facilities, you know?

SC: Do you feel that you're represented well by DeMaurice Smith and George Atallah and what now used to be the Players' Union?

AP: Yeah, I think so — they're doing a good job. And with the veteran guys on board, and the player reps, they give us a lot of confidence.

The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

Owners

[53Fan]

*Players. The owners are making a lot of money as they should be. The players are also...enough to be financially secure for the rest of their lives after a relatively short career that also opens a lot of doors for them after their playing days are over. I don't see many guys turning down a chance to play in the NFL. Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. It's a pretty good gig, if they don't think so....find another line of work and see how "fair" you think that is.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an interview with Yahoo



The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)

The part about modern-day slavery is ridiculous, I agree. Players don't have to play. And, if slaves get paid $5 mil. a year, sign me up for slavery!

[MTK]

I just have a problem with the owners saying yeah, we're gonna need to take a billion back from you. Why? Just trust us.

That shit doesn't fly. I've got no problem with them saying they need that $$ back, just prove it. Guaranteed that more than few owners are hiding some shady shit on their books. And then you have owners in Buffalo and Cincy that won't sell naming rights to their stadiums and are passing up on a big revenue stream.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

I would say players, but only because they didn't take the deal the owners proposed & opted to decertify, which may hurt them in the long run. Time will tell of course. i.e. at this point in time, I see the players taking a bigger risk here and I'm not convinced that its worth if for them. If they get less than what the owners last proposed, they will indeed wear the title of "slightly bigger idiots." (in terms of sheer mass they are more than 'slightly bigger' though)

Overall, though, the owners must accept blame for agreeing to that deal in 06 knowing that it wasn't acceptable to them long-term. That IMO has created this mess, which could've taken place in 06 rather than now. So to answer the question, I'll say players, but that in no way should mean I'm blaming the players moreso than the owners, that's why I voted 'both.'

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

How so?

[over the mountain]

A coal miner or auto factory worker is easy to replace; nfl caliber football players .. not so much.

To clear up my confusion re. the great offer the NFL says the NFLPA walked away from . .that great offer was about concessions the NFL had made to the extra 1 bil they originally demanded in their initial offer?

I dont blame the NFL for trying to start negotiations at their artifically unreasonably high initial offer (i.e. we want 2 bil off the top before we agree on how the other 7 bil gets split), but to only make concessions as to that extra arbitrary 1 bil you demand does not make a great or fair offer and to present that to the NFL fans as the NFL's good faith effort is insulting to me from what lil I know.

No wonder negotiations went nowhere. Did the NFL really believe the NFLPA would count their blessings that the NFL would consider reducing their extra 1 bil demand? If that was the starting point, its no wonder they never got anywhere.

I still think this thing gets resolved in the next 4 months. Each sides dream scenario is out the window now, off the table and hopefully they can start to make honest concessions and not cling to pie dreams.

everything is of my opinion.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I just have a problem with the owners saying yeah, we're gonna need to take a billion back from you. Why? Just trust us.

That shit doesn't fly. I've got no problem with them saying they need that $$ back, just prove it. Guaranteed that more than few owners are hiding some shady shit on their books. And then you have owners in Buffalo and Cincy that won't sell naming rights to their stadiums and are passing up on a big revenue stream.

$1B was the initial bargaining point. They came way down from that. The owners have provided a lot more financial data than "Just trust us".

The NFLPA knew the owners weren't going to give them the financial data they've requested. The owners would be insane to do that. The owners have never provided that level of financial data before. D. Smith wanted to get this into the courts all along. It's where he's comfortable and where the NFLPA thinks they have the best chance for success. That's probably why the NFLPA elected Smith in the first place. They know they can't survive a lockout once game-checks get missed, the players will crack at that point.

[MTK]

Good article before all this mess

The NFL's Win-Win Labor Agreement: Why Collective Bargaining Works Well

[53Fan]

Business owners have never had to tell me how much money they make or why. I sure as hell don't tell my employees how much I make. I pay them a competitive wage and if they can do better somewhere else God bless them. Some of these players have degrees in fields that they could turn into very lucrative careers. Why do they choose the NFL? The love of the game can only carry you so far. Loads of money, fame, sex, whatever.....like I said before, not a bad gig.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I just have a problem with the owners saying yeah, we're gonna need to take a billion back from you. Why? Just trust us.

That shit doesn't fly. I've got no problem with them saying they need that $$ back, just prove it. Guaranteed that more than few owners are hiding some shady shit on their books. And then you have owners in Buffalo and Cincy that won't sell naming rights to their stadiums and are passing up on a big revenue stream.

First of all the owners arent asking for any money back. They are asking to pay the players less in the future. And Who cares whether the owners "need" the more money in a future deal or not? It's a negotiation and both sides have the right to ask for more of the pie. Finally, according to the league, they offered the union even more than what they asked for in terms of financials and the union didn't even look at it...

In my opinion all the evidence points toward the union negotiating in bad faith.