Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

FEB 25 latest on CBA talks


DMD
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writ...in&hpt=Sbin

 

This is a little long but discusses the TV rights aspect.

 

 

Ruling in TV revenues hearing may hold key to NFL labor dispute

 

MINNEAPOLIS -- Football fans seeking a resolution to the labor impasse between the NFL's owners and players have spent the past seven days eyeballing Washington in hopes that the federally mediated talks will lead to a new collective bargaining agreement.

They are looking in the wrong place.

 

Nothing of substance is happening in the nation's capital, as mediator George Cohen admitted Thursday after the sides announced they would suspend discussions for a few days. Still, so many people have been preoccupied with Washington that they may have missed what was happening a time zone to the west, in Minneapolis, where a much more important dialogue was taking place.

 

Thursday, in a wood-paneled room on the 14th floor of the U.S. District Courthouse, union representatives reargued their case for blocking the owners' access to $4 billion in television revenues if there's no football in 2011. The union calls it lockout insurance and contends a Special Master erred earlier this month when he ruled the owners were entitled to the monies even if they shut their doors for the entire season.

 

It's disappointing Thursday's three-hour hearing hasn't gotten more play because it carries more impact than any discussions taking place in Washington. No one knows this better than Judge David Doty, who declined to issue a ruling from the bench because he didn't want to tilt the scales in favor of one side, which is what he believes his ruling will do in the short run.

 

Consider:

 

The owners have argued that the TV extensions are important because they'll enable teams to manage their debt service during a work stoppage. If Doty were to rule against the league, some owners might have a hard time meeting their financial obligations during a lengthy lockout -- particularly in cities such as New York, Dallas, Indianapolis, Philadelphia and Houston, where there are relatively new stadiums.

Meanwhile, the players would be in a tough spot if Doty ruled against them because, contrary to popular perception, this is not a battle of billionaires versus millionaires. On average only a handful of players on each team make $1 million or more each year. The league knows this -- just as clubs know which of their players are strung out financially and have taken advances on future salaries. With a $4 billion war chest, teams could find it easier to hold out and squeeze players.

 

"The judge said he understood that he was being asked to put his thumb on the scale of the labor negotiations, because of the perception ... that this would be a disadvantage to the players if the league had access to the money," said Gregg Levy, the NFL's lead litigator Thursday. "That was their argument."

 

In fact, Jeffrey Kessler, the union's lead attorney, repeatedly drove home his contention that the owners violated terms of the Stipulation & Settlement Agreement -- which serves as the foundation of the current CBA -- by failing to "protect the economic interest of the players" while negotiating the new TV deals. He also hammered the point that the league sought to "inflict economic harm on the players" by securing lockout insurance from the networks.

 

"Their conduct was intentional in the extreme," Kessler argued. "It was carefully planned and executed by the people at the very top."

In his brief that was filed with the court, Kessler painted a picture of a league that willfully sacrificed TV monies in 2009 and 2010 so those dollars could be tacked onto the back ends of the deals and used as lockout insurance in 2011. For instance, DirecTV's previous contract with the league contained no lockout provision. However Chase Carey, former CEO of the company, testified in the Special Master's hearing Feb. 1 that he was told by league management it would be a "deal-breaker" and "clearly a deal we would never do" if the satellite company failed to include lockout provisions in its proposals.

 

Also in a memo obtained from a league broadcast committee meeting, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is quoted as saying the owners "need to realistically assume (we are) locking out in 2011" to get a deal that works for the owners.

Kessler further outlined his case in his brief to the court, which Doty unsealed (with redactions) Thursday afternoon. Among Kessler's arguments, taken verbatim:

 

• Over the summer of 2008, they stated a "key consideration" for the TV Contract negotiations was the "NFL strategic concerns" regarding a "CBA" and a "rationale" for an early DIRECTV extension was "lock(ing) in rights fee with favorable work stoppage provisions as the "solution" for "guaranteed payments in NFL work stoppage."

 

• In October 2008, they stated that "Key Considerations Related to NFL Labor Situation" included the "NFL's ability to use media revenues to fund work stoppage."

 

• In February 2009, an NFL memorandum to the owners on Defendants' broadcast, finance and labor committees state, in preparation for an usual joint meeting of these three Committees: "The specific goals under consideration relating to the timing for key decisions include" -- "Securing revenue streams that will provide the necessary financial flexibility to remain committed to the right long-term labor agreement."

 

• On March 5, 2009, the presentation at the joint meeting of those committees stated that a key factor for Defendants' negotiation decision making was their "Cash Needs During Lockout" and indicated, in their Decision Tree, that the only reason for going forward with the new TV Contracts "Now" was because "Deal Completion Advance(s) CBA Negotiating Dynamics."

 

The league contends that lockout provisions have always been a part of TV contracts, although that wasn't the case with DirecTV and, according to Kessler, the previous ESPN deal would have subjected the league to millions, if not billions, of dollars in liabilities if there were no football for an entire season. Also, in previous deals the league was required to repay moneys in the same work-stoppage year it received them. Now, the league is permitted to make restitution (with interest) at any point over the life of the agreement.

 

"Or repay in the form of rights for games," Levy said.

 

Clearly there is a lot at stake in the Doty ruling. The current CBA expires on March 3, and if Doty, who can rule at any time, issues his judgment before then it could give a tremendous advantage to one side -- even with an appeal from the losing side likely.

So watch the going-nowhere talks in Washington if you will. But the real drama is playing out in a wood-paneled courtroom on the 14th floor of a downtown Minneapolis courthouse. That's where Judge Doty presides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's disappointing Thursday's three-hour hearing hasn't gotten more play because it carries more impact than any discussions taking place in Washington. No one knows this better than Judge David Doty, who declined to issue a ruling from the bench because he didn't want to tilt the scales in favor of one side, which is what he believes his ruling will do in the short run.

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam Schefter

 

NFLPA Exec Dir De Smith addressing agents now. An agent in room texted: "Not close on one single issue. This WILL go into September."

 

:wacko:

isn't that exactly what you say until you decide you can't get anything more out of the other side and throw in the towel. I doubt that we can believe anything coming from either sides. The 2011 football season is important to a lot of people and getting them on your side gives you points.

Edited by Duchess Jack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam Schefter

 

NFLPA Exec Dir De Smith addressing agents now. An agent in room texted: "Not close on one single issue. This WILL go into September."

 

:wacko:

And if it does, I hope the lockout lasts until the NFLPA is in shambles and Smith is ousted from his position.

 

Although, the more I read about this crap the closer I get to a conclusion that if the 2011 regular season is fubarred, I'm out on Football at the pro level. I didn't watch baseball for years after the strike they had in the 90's. The part that is driving me insane is that both sides could meet in the middle and this could be fixed quickly. But every Ionic Breeze has to have three lawyers per owner/NFLPA rep who completely screw this thing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's what seems really, really sleazy. So, the current deal stipulates a specific division of revenues. If the owners were truly able to negotiate "lockout insurance" from the networks, that obviously had to come at a cost to current revenues. That's not speculation, that has to be fact. How else could it be? There is always a trade off. More money up front with no insurance or less money up front with insurance. Even if the networks just came out and offered it, you have to think that the owners could have said that they'd rather take the cash up front.

 

Which means the players basically paid for that insurance with their share of the lost revenues that assuredly could have been there had the owners not chosen to take the money on the back end.

 

So, in other words, the owners short-changed the players in terms of what revenues could have been to allow them the luxury of having a better bargaining position against the same.

 

How could this deal ever have been allowed? How does that deal not completely violate any collective bargaining arrangement?

 

Call that shrewd if you like, but that seems more sleazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could this deal ever have been allowed? How does that deal not completely violate any collective bargaining arrangement?

 

There is no CBA. What do you think all this is about?

 

 

 

Call that shrewd if you like, but that seems more sleazy.

 

The NFLPA vastly over-reached on the past extension. Now the owners are intent on regaining what they lost there. I think the players would do themselves a hugh favor by getting solidly behind a rookie cap as an immediate concession. It gives owners back some millions while not losing a thing for current players, and opens the door for more negotiations.

 

I think the owners will relent on the 18 game regular season, especially since some far sighted owners don't support it.

 

Each side budging on those issues may lead to a much more rapid conclusion to this mess. Unfortunately both sides have some members hell-bent on getting their own way no matter what the consequences, meaning neither side wins. Too many egos still in play right now to get something serious done.

 

But hey, if I'm forced to only watch college football this coming season my life would still be okay. I think giving the economic condition of most people's lives that a lot of people feel the same way. Unemployment went up again recently and looks to be hovering at or above 9% for quite a while - maybe permanently. Gas and wholesale prices are going up, and taxes have to go up to support the wild government spending. Average people are feeling the pinch and its getting worse. People are still losing their houses. Production in the country is stagnant and looks to be for a while at least. Neither side is going to find a lot of support from the fan base on how to divide billions under those circumstances. This couldn't be a worse time for either side to be playing the sympathy card.

 

If they do what MLB did and drive away droves of fans, they going to really regret this idiocy. How rich do all these guys really need to be for the sake of a freakin' game?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no CBA. What do you think all this is about?

 

 

 

 

 

The NFLPA vastly over-reached on the past extension. Now the owners are intent on regaining what they lost there. I think the players would do themselves a hugh favor by getting solidly behind a rookie cap as an immediate concession. It gives owners back some millions while not losing a thing for current players, and opens the door for more negotiations.

 

I think the owners will relent on the 18 game regular season, especially since some far sighted owners don't support it.

 

Each side budging on those issues may lead to a much more rapid conclusion to this mess. Unfortunately both sides have some members hell-bent on getting their own way no matter what the consequences, meaning neither side wins. Too many egos still in play right now to get something serious done.

 

But hey, if I'm forced to only watch college football this coming season my life would still be okay. I think giving the economic condition of most people's lives that a lot of people feel the same way. Unemployment went up again recently and looks to be hovering at or above 9% for quite a while - maybe permanently. Gas and wholesale prices are going up, and taxes have to go up to support the wild government spending. Average people are feeling the pinch and its getting worse. People are still losing their houses. Production in the country is stagnant and looks to be for a while at least. Neither side is going to find a lot of support from the fan base on how to divide billions under those circumstances. This couldn't be a worse time for either side to be playing the sympathy card.

 

If they do what MLB did and drive away droves of fans, they going to really regret this idiocy. How rich do all these guys really need to be for the sake of a freakin' game?

For starters, there is until March 3rd and there was when the NFL signed whatever TV deals that included the stipulation that they'd still get paid something even if there was no football. And that's what I'm talking about. That contract, signed when the deal with the players that is about to expire was still in play, undoubtedly left current money on the table in exchange for what amounts to an insurance policy for the owners but not the players.

 

So, again, the players effectively paid for this very important leg up the owners have with lost wages. Because they were getting a cut of a relatively smaller pie.

 

So, again, the players made less over the last few years (because their cut was of a smaller nut than it could have been without this policy) in order to give the owners a leg up in these negotiations.

 

As far as the rookie scale, how does this save the owners any money if the total compensation to the players doesn't change? They still pay as much in total to the players, it's just less goes to rookies (or, in reality, about 10-15 rookies per year because those are really the only ones with insane contracts. They get somewhat reasonable by the middle of the first round and those would likely not be as effected). All the rookie wage scale really does is actually make the draft an effective method of creating parity, something out-of-whack discrepancy between picks at the top of the 1st vs bottom of the 1st actually does the exact opposite of because it burdens the worst teams with cap-killing contracts for unproven players.

 

Lastly, how the hell do you know the players overreached? I'm not saying they didn't. I really don't know either way. But what are you basing this on? Do you know for sure that the last CBA set the owners up in a vulnerable and unsustainable situation? Or are you just assuming that because the owners are prepared to lock the players out. I mean, why oh why would the owners simply realize that they're in a much better bargaining position than the players and can simply put the screws to them? Even if they're really doing just fine now and looking forward. Honestly, do you really know that owners truly need to "fix" this for the health of the league?

 

As for your last point. I hear you loud and clear. I'll keep watching as long as it's on. But if there's no season in 2011, I'm done. Eff them both as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, how the hell do you know the players overreached? I'm not saying they didn't. I really don't know either way. But what are you basing this on? Do you know for sure that the last CBA set the owners up in a vulnerable and unsustainable situation? Or are you just assuming that because the owners are prepared to lock the players out. I mean, why oh why would the owners simply realize that they're in a much better bargaining position than the players and can simply put the screws to them? Even if they're really doing just fine now and looking forward. Honestly, do you really know that owners truly need to "fix" this for the health of the league?

 

This says the players over-reached

 

CBA Upside

 

The recent six-year extension of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement clearly was about the money. The players are guaranteed 59.5 percent of all football revenues for 2006-2009 and 60 percent of all revenues for 2010-2011. The 2006 salary cap ($102 million to $104 million) is about 20 percent higher than the 2005 cap of $86 million.

 

But beyond the bottom-line numbers, there were a number of smaller, yet significant victories for the players:

 

• The third time a player is franchised by a team, the required tender will now be the average salary of the top five players at the position with the highest average salary or 120 percent above his applicable salary from the previous year, whichever is higher. If the player plays the position with the highest average salary, then the required tender for that player will be a 140 percent increase over his prior year's salary. Previously, all players received tenders based only on their position, and if a player was tendered multiple times the tender was a 120 percent increase over the prior salary.

 

• The franchise and transition tenders from the previous season are now included in computing the franchise and transition tenders for the current season. Previously, tenders from the prior season were not included.

 

• Transition tenders are now guaranteed.

 

• Maximum discipline by a team for a player's misconduct is now limited to a four-game suspension; the player cannot be deactivated in addition to the suspension. Previously, a player could be deactivated after the four-game suspension.

 

• Contracts signed by players chosen in the top half of the first round have a maximum of six years. Contracts signed by players in the bottom half of the first round have a maximum of five years. Contracts signed by all other drafted players have a maximum of four years. Previously, there were no such limits on any contracts.

 

• The first-year minimum salary is now $275,000, up from $230,000 in 2005. All other minimum salaries increase by $40,000.

 

• Health care benefits for retired players, preseason pay, postseason pay and per diems have increased.

 

The owners weren't in a position to resist the players when the extension came up. 60% of gross revenues? That's flat-out outrageous. Then add the other tweaks listed. And then the owners get their noses rubbed in it publicly.

 

But these are smart businessmen. They changed the way the game is played. They got the networks to sign contracts with the league that guaranteed the NFL TV revenues whether there were games or not:

 

LINK

 

How will a work stoppage affect TV deals with Fox, CBS, NBC and ESPN?

 

The owners still get their TV money. As union boss DeMaurice Smith told SI: "The third-grade analysis of this labor situation is that no one wants to kill the golden goose. But look at it like this: The league is guaranteed $4 billion from the TV networks (in 2011) even if there's no football." The four networks will fulfill their commitments to pay more than $20 billion through 2011, under current deals with the NFL. There supposedly is a two-year, $2 billion renewal on the table with ESPN to secure its TV rights to "Monday Night Football."

 

The owners got embarrassed at the CBA extension negotiations. Upshaw called their bluff, and then many in the media noted how the owners got their heads handed to them. The owners made sure they were loaded for bear this time.

 

In 2006 the players held the hammer. Now the owners hold the hammer, and it's a lot bigger than the one the players held then. If there is a lockout, the owners still get TV revenues while the players get nothing.

 

Let's repeat that. The owners may actually make more money this coming year if they get paid TV revenues but do not have to pay the players. That gives the owners total control in this situation. There are some owners that actually are advocating a lockout no matter what, but some of the smarter owners realize the potential long-term damage and are holding those owners in check right now.

 

The players need to come to grips with this. They bamboozled the owners in 2006. It's their turn being the fish in the barrel this time. They'd better be prepared to make serious concessions from what became SOP in 2006, or they'd better be ready to survive without paychecks for a while. We've seen how good of businessmen a lot of the players are.

 

Who do you think wins this time around?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners still get their TV money. As union boss DeMaurice Smith told SI: "The third-grade analysis of this labor situation is that no one wants to kill the golden goose. But look at it like this: The league is guaranteed $4 billion from the TV networks (in 2011) even if there's no football." The four networks will fulfill their commitments to pay more than $20 billion through 2011, under current deals with the NFL. There supposedly is a two-year, $2 billion renewal on the table with ESPN to secure its TV rights to "Monday Night Football."

[/i]

 

 

Except there is a pending ruling on this. If the judge had enough balls to hand down a ruling and it wasn't in favor of the owners, this entire mess would be cleared up in a week. But the judge, who has ruled but is refusing to hand down the ruling on the grounds it would influence the current CBA negotiations, is a Shark Vac bag. I'm hoping there is enough heat levied upon his ass to reverse his decision to withhold the ruling...I doubt that happens though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except there is a pending ruling on this. If the judge had enough balls to hand down a ruling and it wasn't in favor of the owners, this entire mess would be cleared up in a week. But the judge, who has ruled but is refusing to hand down the ruling on the grounds it would influence the current CBA negotiations, is a Shark Vac bag. I'm hoping there is enough heat levied upon his ass to reverse his decision to withhold the ruling...I doubt that happens though.

 

There is a pending ruling, but you don't know what it is? The judge knows whatever the ruling is thaat it certainly would influence the negotiations. What happens if the ruling is in favor of the owners? That might only embolden the more militant owners even more. And the judge may be bound by statute not to disclose the ruling while negotiations are ongoing. I don't know labor law very deeply. Do you?

 

Let the two sides find some sane people from their respective sides and work their way through this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know labor law very deeply. Do you?

 

Let the two sides find some sane people from their respective sides and work their way through this.

 

I do not and will never pretend to. I just find it odd that a potential ruling could sway the negotiations and I'm thinking it wouldn't favor the owners. Of course I have no grounds to feel this way, just a gut feeling is all.

 

The problem with finding a sane person from the players side is that they voted in Smith to begin with. An outsider....biggest mistake they made IMO. He's trying to play hardball in a turf he has no history with.

 

But in the end, I'm just like you and everybody else. I want this resolved, and resolved quickly. I just fear that is not going to be the case at all. I hope I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says the players over-reached

 

CBA Upside

 

The recent six-year extension of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement clearly was about the money. The players are guaranteed 59.5 percent of all football revenues for 2006-2009 and 60 percent of all revenues for 2010-2011. The 2006 salary cap ($102 million to $104 million) is about 20 percent higher than the 2005 cap of $86 million.

 

But beyond the bottom-line numbers, there were a number of smaller, yet significant victories for the players:

 

• The third time a player is franchised by a team, the required tender will now be the average salary of the top five players at the position with the highest average salary or 120 percent above his applicable salary from the previous year, whichever is higher. If the player plays the position with the highest average salary, then the required tender for that player will be a 140 percent increase over his prior year's salary. Previously, all players received tenders based only on their position, and if a player was tendered multiple times the tender was a 120 percent increase over the prior salary.

 

• The franchise and transition tenders from the previous season are now included in computing the franchise and transition tenders for the current season. Previously, tenders from the prior season were not included.

 

• Transition tenders are now guaranteed.

 

• Maximum discipline by a team for a player's misconduct is now limited to a four-game suspension; the player cannot be deactivated in addition to the suspension. Previously, a player could be deactivated after the four-game suspension.

 

• Contracts signed by players chosen in the top half of the first round have a maximum of six years. Contracts signed by players in the bottom half of the first round have a maximum of five years. Contracts signed by all other drafted players have a maximum of four years. Previously, there were no such limits on any contracts.

 

• The first-year minimum salary is now $275,000, up from $230,000 in 2005. All other minimum salaries increase by $40,000.

 

• Health care benefits for retired players, preseason pay, postseason pay and per diems have increased.

 

The owners weren't in a position to resist the players when the extension came up. 60% of gross revenues? That's flat-out outrageous. Then add the other tweaks listed. And then the owners get their noses rubbed in it publicly.

 

But these are smart businessmen. They changed the way the game is played. They got the networks to sign contracts with the league that guaranteed the NFL TV revenues whether there were games or not:

 

LINK

 

How will a work stoppage affect TV deals with Fox, CBS, NBC and ESPN?

 

The owners still get their TV money. As union boss DeMaurice Smith told SI: "The third-grade analysis of this labor situation is that no one wants to kill the golden goose. But look at it like this: The league is guaranteed $4 billion from the TV networks (in 2011) even if there's no football." The four networks will fulfill their commitments to pay more than $20 billion through 2011, under current deals with the NFL. There supposedly is a two-year, $2 billion renewal on the table with ESPN to secure its TV rights to "Monday Night Football."

 

The owners got embarrassed at the CBA extension negotiations. Upshaw called their bluff, and then many in the media noted how the owners got their heads handed to them. The owners made sure they were loaded for bear this time.

 

In 2006 the players held the hammer. Now the owners hold the hammer, and it's a lot bigger than the one the players held then. If there is a lockout, the owners still get TV revenues while the players get nothing.

 

Let's repeat that. The owners may actually make more money this coming year if they get paid TV revenues but do not have to pay the players. That gives the owners total control in this situation. There are some owners that actually are advocating a lockout no matter what, but some of the smarter owners realize the potential long-term damage and are holding those owners in check right now.

 

The players need to come to grips with this. They bamboozled the owners in 2006. It's their turn being the fish in the barrel this time. They'd better be prepared to make serious concessions from what became SOP in 2006, or they'd better be ready to survive without paychecks for a while. We've seen how good of businessmen a lot of the players are.

 

Who do you think wins this time around?

Compelling stuff but do we really know whether the players "got over" on the owners or merely made historic gains in terms of their position. For most of my life, I was under the impression that the NFLPA was relatively weak. So maybe they had some catching up to do. Guys assume that 60% of revenue is outlandish, but do we really know the whole picture? Especially considering I keep hearing that the owners get to pull $1 Billion off the top for "expenses", which seems odd. Not that they have expenses but that they got to pull that off the top before splitting the pot.

 

Again, maybe 60% is a reckless number that jeopardizes the health of the league. Mind you, I'm curious why the owners gave in 5 years ago if that was the case. But you can't just assume it is because it seems big. What are the owner's netting?

 

None the less, at least that number was negotiated fair and square. Guys throw around the phrase, "the players bamboozled the owners". How? The owners signed the deal. It wasn't as if the players changed the game behind their backs. Which does seem to be the case with the manner in which the owners negotiated the TV deal. Something that you still haven't addressed. That's "bamboozled"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compelling stuff but do we really know whether the players "got over" on the owners or merely made historic gains in terms of their position. For most of my life, I was under the impression that the NFLPA was relatively weak. So maybe they had some catching up to do. Guys assume that 60% of revenue is outlandish, but do we really know the whole picture? Especially considering I keep hearing that the owners get to pull $1 Billion off the top for "expenses", which seems odd. Not that they have expenses but that they got to pull that off the top before splitting the pot.

 

Again, maybe 60% is a reckless number that jeopardizes the health of the league. Mind you, I'm curious why the owners gave in 5 years ago if that was the case. But you can't just assume it is because it seems big. What are the owner's netting?

 

None the less, at least that number was negotiated fair and square. Guys throw around the phrase, "the players bamboozled the owners". How? The owners signed the deal. It wasn't as if the players changed the game behind their backs. Which does seem to be the case with the manner in which the owners negotiated the TV deal. Something that you still haven't addressed. That's "bamboozled"

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Nevermind. It's not even worth having a discussion with you about this if you can't even acknowledge the blatantly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Just wow.

 

Nevermind. It's not even worth having a discussion with you about this if you can't even acknowledge the blatantly obvious.

Humor me. Why is this blatantly obvious? Is there some magic number that everyone should realize is an unsustainable ratio of payout to the players? And if this number is so obviously higher than it should be, why did the owners agree to it? That's the hardest part to understand. The way you speak, you shouldn't have to explain any more than, "60%! Can you believe that? 60%! Everyone should realize how outrageous that is!". Well, apparently everyone but the guys who agreed to pay it. Guys who have made literally billions of dollars in the business world. So, you're saying that Jerry Jones agreed to pay someone a % of revenues that is so incredibly out of line that you can dismiss someone's ability to "acknowledge the blatantly obvious" for wondering if that number is really so out of line?

 

Why do think businessmen are so stupid?

 

Do you mean to say that we should be sympathetic to the owners because this collection of some of the richest and most powerful businessmen in the country were bettered at the bargaining table by a bunch of football players?

 

So, again, what about the fact that the owners basically used the players money to bargain for an insurance policy that protected only them and, in fact strengthens their stance against the players?

 

And, explain how the players negotiating their way into a very favorable contract is "bamboozling" but the owners doing what I described is not.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information