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 This theme may be out of date.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.]]

CBA extended 7 more days


DMD
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is nothing but positive. Were it extended just for a day or two more, it would mean that both sides are just wrapping up their legalities before entering their bunkers for a while. Had they not extended anything would be even more catastrophic.

 

I expect this is not the final extension either. But it is at least all positive right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

From everything I've read, there wouldn't be an extension today unless both sides legitimately thought they could come to an agreement. NFLN was saying there has been more progress in CBA negotiations in the last 48 hours than in the last two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

From everything I've read, there wouldn't be an extension today unless both sides legitimately thought they could come to an agreement. NFLN was saying there has been more progress in CBA negotiations in the last 48 hours than in the last two years.

I read that also. Itis looking pretty good that an agreement can be reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've contended all along that a deal could be struck by mid-March. Despite all the doom and gloom talking heads before arbitration started, the reality is the owners want a bit more and the players know they will need to give a little. They aren't that far apart and these type of negotiations never heat up until there's a deadline looming (especially with the NFL).

 

I think DMD's right in that there may be another extension, but mid-March is still my prediction. Could be wrong, but i hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFLN was saying there has been more progress in CBA negotiations in the last 48 hours than in the last two years.

Which is maddening in itself.

Owners: Give up the 18 game schedule

Players: Allow the rookie wage scale

Owners: Health benefits for all that played. Not only vested vets who have played 3 years and 4 games.

Players: Give back a little bit of the money to balance thigns.

 

Both sides over the past few years have just been trying to take the other, instead of working something out that works for everyone. Jackwagons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've contended all along that a deal could be struck by mid-March. Despite all the doom and gloom talking heads before arbitration started, the reality is the owners want a bit more and the players know they will need to give a little. They aren't that far apart and these type of negotiations never heat up until there's a deadline looming (especially with the NFL).

 

I think DMD's right in that there may be another extension, but mid-March is still my prediction. Could be wrong, but i hope not.

Man I hope your right. I really thought we were done until August but this gives me hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure whats worse... This drama, or the Favre drama we get every year.

Beat me to it. This is starting to remind me of that. Respectfully disagree that this is good news. Freakin do it or don't already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure whats worse... This drama, or the Favre drama we get every year.

 

This dramas worse by far because one of the options is no football at all...with Favre it is just annoying and trivial. This will really impact all football fans while Favre's decision most people don't care...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to chime in here too..

 

it makes me so pissed off that the friggen NLF as a business that makes 9 Billion in overhead, with players that make Millions (Dr Evil pinky) gotta squabble over this BS like they need more money.

 

PiragespwnNinjas post #9 is close to my thoughs..

 

Totally against the 18 gm schedule. just plain retarted IMO

Would like to see a rookie cap (players with ZERO experience -hell not even a training camp under their damn belts- making near, equal, or more then Manning/Brady/Brees and the veteran like.. is absurd)

how many more millions do the players actually need? they put it on the line for the league, look out for them once their dues are paid, I mean really..

 

Finally, its been two damn years already!!! put your collective greeds aside and lets get this SHAM WOW! done so everyone like me can enjoy another season of NFL Pro Football (lets get back to the Nations Fun League)

 

End Rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the Owners and the Players serve a year in Afganistan, then talk

F'n rich pricks :wacko:

:applause:

 

 

So Sorry that is gone forever.

No kidding. Now it's dominated by immature circus clowns, gansta thugs, and drama queens who would've had the crap kicked out of them before being quickly shunned by the league and its fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing will be over in a week.

 

Once the owners lost the rights to the TV money despite no football, they lost their war chest. If you think owners are going to dip into their own pockets to finance stadium debt obligations and payroll, you are sadly mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing will be over in a week.

 

Once the owners lost the rights to the TV money despite no football, they lost their war chest. If you think owners are going to dip into their own pockets to finance stadium debt obligations and payroll, you are sadly mistaken.

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, not that I even know what to believe, but the talk is that the owners want another billion and the players want to see the books. That they claim they've been shown rather unusable slices of the financial picture. Now, I understand that, technically, management should not have to open the books whenever they're in negotiations with labor. However, I do think this is different because the court of public opinion is sort of in play.

 

When this whole thing started, I mentioned why I thought management had the upper hand and would ultimately get their way. Mind you, that changed drastically when the judge ruled against the $ 4 Billion dollar deal they had. Possibly enough to completely counter the fact that they're, as a whole, wealthier and personally able to afford a stoppage. Because they, unlike the players, have to service debt on stadiums and such.

 

Now it seems it comes down to having the public on their side. A public that can't fathom why the players can't be happy with what they have. However, if it comes out that the owners are making money hand over fist and that this was just a power play to get more, rather than a needed move to keep the league's health from crumbling under the weight of player greed, that could vanish as well.

 

I mean, that is the card they're playing, that the players "overreached" the last time around and that the current agreement is not sustainable. And that, because of that, each team needs another $30 million off the top. OK then, seems fair enough. But it would also seem fair to show the party you're telling needs to give that money up that this, in fact, is the case. Again, the players don't get the luxury of us not knowing what they make. Why do the owners?

 

Of course, the players owe it to them to be cool with the owners getting paid. If the owners can show that, after expenses, they don't walk away with what should be an acceptable ROI, then the players should certainly yield and give more money off the top. The players certainly can't expect the owners to do this as a labor of love.

 

If it truly has come down to the players being ready to give in on that billion and merely wanting to see the books before they do and the owners not willing to show it, then I think this one falls on the owners. I mean, what are they trying to hide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it truly has come down to the players being ready to give in on that billion and merely wanting to see the books before they do and the owners not willing to show it, then I think this one falls on the owners. I mean, what are they trying to hide?

 

It is not a question of hiding anything. It is about the union that will only consider the numbers that justified their stance and pointing at them and not having any long-term considerations to it either since all the players care about is getting paid this year. Do you open your books to your employees when determining their salaries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a question of hiding anything. It is about the union that will only consider the numbers that justified their stance and pointing at them and not having any long-term considerations to it either since all the players care about is getting paid this year. Do you open your books to your employees when determining their salaries?

I was at a "job club" thing on Friday where the CFO of an Austin-based company came and spoke and made the club aware of a bunch of new openings at the company. In his talk, he mentioned that the ENTIRE company has a weekly meeting where 100% of the financial information is shared.

 

Obviously not a common occurrence.

 

As for the owners opening their books, it looks like the union has retained some international bank giant to review the books. :wacko: Perhaps I misunderstood on the radio yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a question of hiding anything. It is about the union that will only consider the numbers that justified their stance and pointing at them and not having any long-term considerations to it either since all the players care about is getting paid this year. Do you open your books to your employees when determining their salaries?

David, with all due respect, your response seems rather knee-jerk. For starters, I specifically said that I realize it's quite uncommon for management to do this. However, surely you realize that my situation with my employees is vastly different between super high profile employees battling with a massively high profile business.

 

But the entire tenor of your post seems like you've already made up your mind. That you're convinced that, if the owners were to show their books, we'd all certainly see that the players are in the wrong here. Not saying that, in and of itself, is reason to expect the owners to open them up, but abundantly naive an assumption on your part.

 

Again, what we know: Players make a ton of money.

What many of us assume: Players make too much money and have forced the owners into an agreement that is bad for the NFL as a whole. But, without actually seeing the numbers, why is this a fair assumption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, with all due respect, your response seems rather knee-jerk. For starters, I specifically said that I realize it's quite uncommon for management to do this. However, surely you realize that my situation with my employees is vastly different between super high profile employees battling with a massively high profile business.

 

But the entire tenor of your post seems like you've already made up your mind. That you're convinced that, if the owners were to show their books, we'd all certainly see that the players are in the wrong here. Not saying that, in and of itself, is reason to expect the owners to open them up, but abundantly naive an assumption on your part.

 

Again, what we know: Players make a ton of money.

What many of us assume: Players make too much money and have forced the owners into an agreement that is bad for the NFL as a whole. But, without actually seeing the numbers, why is this a fair assumption?

 

The players have never been in the wrong per se - they want to remain status quo while the owners are the ones wanting to change to a more equitable/realistic/whatever state. I am 100% certain that were the books in their entirety made available that the NFLPA would absolutely jockey the numbers around to make their own case regardless of reality. That would be the job of the negotiators for them since it is in their favor to present a stance as favorable as possible to their clients. That isn't right or wrong, that is just business. it is complicated too by the differing agendas of the two sides so what makes 100% sense to one almost cannot be the same for the other.

 

Therein lies the rub. No matter what the books would say, it is not like the union is going to just nod and say "I get it now, we're cool with everything".

 

I realize too the difference between your business and the NFL but at the core it illustrates one of the problems. I know nothing about your restaurants or how successful they are, but just for argument, let's say you make $125,000 from a restaurant and after all expenses other than paying yourself. To a busboy or dishwasher making market rate, you can certainly afford to pay them more. Your cooks and whatever support people never consider your risk now and in the future, or the fact that you should be due as good of a return on your investment as possible. They would just look at the $125k and in their perspective they helped you make a lot of money and you should give more to them since you could not possibly do it all yourself. As a business owner, you are as interested in five years from now as you are now (assuming you are not about to go under) because you want a healthy ongoing business and know you are going to have to make reinvestments and upgrades and the like along the way. We can overly complicate or simplify any analogy but at the crux, the two sides have vastly differing agendas and outlooks and those naturally influence how they view everything. The two sides can look at the same numbers and see very different things guaranteed.

 

I do not think the players are making too much or too little really because their employers are willingly doing it. I just want football personally and it doesn't matter to me who makes what. This has all become a very big business by now and the costs of attending a game are now astronomic IMO because of both players and owners. But people buy the ticket since that is what the market will bear and neither the owners nor the players are into this for anything but the money.

 

I would be a bit more inclined to believe "Players make too much money and have forced the owners into an agreement that is bad for the NFL as a whole." because at the time of the previous signing it was a shock that the owners agreed to it and even then it was written so that the owners could opt out. There is also the reality of the economy that has greatly changed since the last CBA and the many new stadiums. The owners go into a lockout and take a risk of negatively affecting their businesses for years. And players are making exponentially more money than they did in the past with minimums of $340,000 for a rookie up to $860,000 for a 10-year veteran as a starting point.

 

The owners got themselves into this situation by agreeing to the old CBA knowing that the players are never going to want to give anything back, even if it is just a percentage and may not even result in lower salaries. I kind of blame both sides. The owners should police themselves on signing rookie contracts that are ridiculous and they don't. And the players make a king's ransom and most of them just literally blow a fortune in a matter of a few years that would allow most any of us to retire with great comfort.

 

Opening the books is almost never done and won't solve anything if it does happen. I find it amusing that if the union decertifies, the players will bring up an antitrust lawsuit naming Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees as named litigants when they must combine for what - $300 million in total salaries so far? Manning has a $23 million tender right now. Doesn't exactly make a case for greedy owners.

 

The only thing I have made up my mind on is that both sides need to get this done quickly and without any interruption because it is unthinkable that they could screw this up. I honestly think they are realizing that more now and are moving in the right direction even if they are still not completely at the same place yet.

 

One sign that the players did very well last time? In 2005 the NFL salary cap was $85.5 million per team. In the final capped year of 2009, it was up to $127 million so that during a recession when most were losing their jobs or taking pay cuts, the NFL players overall had their salaries increase 33% during the economically worst four years in our lifetimes.

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