WaterMan Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312/ap_on_...nflpa_statement Issues which prevented a new NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement from being reached: • The NFL demanded a multi-billion dollar giveback and refused to provide any legitimate financial information to justify it. • The NFL's offer on March 7 to give the NFLPA a single sheet of numbers was NOT financial disclosure. The players' accountants and bankers advised that the "offered" information was meaningless: only two numbers for each year. • The NFL wanted to turn the clock back on player compensation by four years, moving them back to where they were in 2007. • The NFL offered no proposal at all for long-term share of revenues. • NFL demanded 100 (percent) of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years. • The NFL refused to meet the players on significant changes to in-season, offseason or preseason health and safety rules. • The NFL kept on the table its hypocritical demand for an 18-game season, despite its public claims to be working toward improving the heath and safety of players. • The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers' compensation benefits for injured players. • The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans -- into players' fourth and fifth years THE PLAYERS WANT TO KEEP PLAYING: • The players offered repeatedly to continue working under the existing CBA, but were rejected by the NFL five times. • Despite publicly admitting no club was losing money, that TV ratings, sponsorship money, etc. were at an all time high, the NFL continued to insist on an 18-percent rollback in the players' share of revenues and continue to deny the NFLPA's request for justification. Edited March 12, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 How do you know this? Are you D. Smith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Link please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Link please http://www.nfllockout.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The NFL gave a descriptive list of what they offered, and the NFLPA can only post bullet points? Fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 This is all PR in the hopes of swaying public opinion. The NFLPA negotiated in bad faith from the get-go. It's clear they never intended to work with the owners and instead were intent on decertifying the entire time. They clearly feel their best recourse is in the courts and with Judge Doty who has sided with the players on most issues historically. What I don't get is how decertifying can be viewed as anything less than a sham. I mean, the league, as it was set up for years, was pefectly ok to all these players, and now, since they didn't get what they wanted at the bargaining table, they all of sudden say "Anti Trust !! " That's BS. It was fine when you were collecting millions of dollars in pay. Why is it all of a sudden an anti-trust issue? Hopefully Judge Doty recognizes this and allows the owners to maintain the lockout. According to legal experts, this first decision is a likely tipping point in the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2v Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Link please Michael Silver's Yahoo article I realize this board appears to be strongly in favor of the owners, but it takes two to tango. Silver's article is a somewhat unbiased (vs. NFL Lockout, which is pro players, and NFL.com, which is pro league) look at what the players were thinking. I know it's not going to sway any of you off your pro-owners stance, but maybe you'll at least acknowledge both sides are greedy and stubborn and at fault. 2V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Michael Silver's Yahoo article I realize this board appears to be strongly in favor of the owners, but it takes two to tango. Silver's article is a somewhat unbiased (vs. NFL Lockout, which is pro players, and NFL.com, which is pro league) look at what the players were thinking. I know it's not going to sway any of you off your pro-owners stance, but maybe you'll at least acknowledge both sides are greedy and stubborn and at fault. 2V Dude, you're nuts if you consider that to be unbiased. That was a very NFLPA slanted article. And you're right, it did nothing to sway me. Just the opposite really, if that's possible. Edited March 12, 2011 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Michael Silver's Yahoo article I realize this board appears to be strongly in favor of the owners, but it takes two to tango. Silver's article is a somewhat unbiased (vs. NFL Lockout, which is pro players, and NFL.com, which is pro league) look at what the players were thinking. I know it's not going to sway any of you off your pro-owners stance, but maybe you'll at least acknowledge both sides are greedy and stubborn and at fault. 2V It doesn't change the fact that the Owners were trying to meet in the middle... No, more than the middle and the NFLPA wouldn't budge an inch. Both sides are greedy, but one side isn't trying to work out something at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 It doesn't change the fact that the Owners were trying to meet in the middle... No, more than the middle and the NFLPA wouldn't budge an inch. Both sides are greedy, but one side isn't trying to work out something at all. Here's the thing though, who says the middle is fair? For all we know, everything was truly hunky dory and the owners just wanted a bigger cut because they figured they could get it. Again, we simply don't know. So, if that's the case, and they throw out some big number they want, why should the players have to accept half of that number? What if the truly "fair" number is the one they've been operating with this whole time? If your boss came to you and said he wanted to cut your pay by 20% and then, when you balked, said, "OK, let's just cut it 10%". Are you a dick because you're not ready to "meet him halfway"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Here's the thing though, who says the middle is fair? For all we know, everything was truly hunky dory and the owners just wanted a bigger cut because they figured they could get it. Again, we simply don't know. So, if that's the case, and they throw out some big number they want, why should the players have to accept half of that number? What if the truly "fair" number is the one they've been operating with this whole time? If your boss came to you and said he wanted to cut your pay by 20% and then, when you balked, said, "OK, let's just cut it 10%". Are you a dick because you're not ready to "meet him halfway"? I had a job 3 years ago where I had to take 2 10% paycuts in 6 months. The owners did it because they recognized the economic realities and that the entire company would eventually collapse at the current payroll/benefits. I wasn't a partner - like the players seem to think they are - and I couldn't file an injunction to stop them. I had two choices: take the pay cuts or find another job. That's the situation the players should be faced with,. Instead they take the position that they have an inherent "right" to play and that they have the same status as partners. They can do what I did - find another job. I wish them the best in that. I'm sure that Burger King will pay them $1M signing bonuses and contract with them to flip burgers at $2M for 3 years. Instead they rely on a sympathetic judge and that judge's interpretation of labor law. Well, the owners are astute businessmen, or they have astute advisors working for them. They know they can wait the players out if they choose to play hardball. The players have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they can not manage their finances despite the enormous paychecks they get. The owners simply need to file appeals and watch the players drop to their knees in a year or two. Hell, there are already players who are in serious financial distress. Instead, the owners keep coming to the table with reasonable offers that De Miller just pisses away. The owners don't have to have the money, but they are the only side trying to make this work. That's something else that sticks in my craw. If the players get more of the owner's money (and it is the owners money), 78% of them will still be destitute within 2 years of them being out of football. If the union really gave a damn, why wouldn't they help players manage their finanaces so the players could live very comfortably after their NFL careers are over? Teach these financial morans how to make their earnings last? This is like watching the public education battle. They think more money will cure all the problems, and all it ends up doing is wasting more money with no better results. The owners are very wealthy. No question. They are greedy. No question. But they are the owners and they have compensated players very very well, and the players have shown no capability of making their capital work for them so that they can live rich lives for their entire lives. Right now it's like watching a drunk sue for more booze, with the assurance that they will not get drunk any more if they get it, and besides they have a "right" to have someone buy them more booze. If we really want to discuss "fair", let's start by looking at the alternatives the players have if they do anything else beside play football. By that standard, the owners are being downright overwhelmingly generous. Edited March 12, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I had a job 3 years ago where I had to take 2 10% paycuts in 6 months. The owners did it because they recognized the economic realities and that the entire company would eventually collapse at the current payroll/benefits. So is the NFL collapsing or is it growing in popularity and revenue every year as well as appreciating in franchise value? Pretty sure it is the 2nd part . . . so your comparison is hollow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 So is the NFL collapsing or is it growing in popularity and revenue every year as well as appreciating in franchise value? Pretty sure it is the 2nd part . . . so your comparison is hollow. Franchise appreciation is a paper gain, no more. Can you show me what the costs are to the owners? All the costs, not just player payroll. Can you show me where players are incorporated as partners in the league? Until then, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Franchise appreciation is a paper gain, no more. Can you show me what the costs are to the owners? All the costs, not just player payroll. Can you show me where players are incorporated as partners in the league? Until then, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And clearly, neither do you . . . yet the owners dont want to reveal that . . .why? Because it probably doesnt support their "we need more money" mantra . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Michael Silver's Yahoo article I realize this board appears to be strongly in favor of the owners, but it takes two to tango. Silver's article is a somewhat unbiased (vs. NFL Lockout, which is pro players, and NFL.com, which is pro league) look at what the players were thinking. I know it's not going to sway any of you off your pro-owners stance, but maybe you'll at least acknowledge both sides are greedy and stubborn and at fault. 2V I was disappointed that the owners did offer to open up their books for five years but the players wanted ten. If either side gave in, I don't think many here would be disappointed that either side gave up too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I had a job 3 years ago where I had to take 2 10% paycuts in 6 months. The owners did it because they recognized the economic realities and that the entire company would eventually collapse at the current payroll/benefits. I wasn't a partner - like the players seem to think they are - and I couldn't file an injunction to stop them. I had two choices: take the pay cuts or find another job. That's the situation the players should be faced with,. Instead they take the position that they have an inherent "right" to play and that they have the same status as partners. They can do what I did - find another job. I wish them the best in that. I'm sure that Burger King will pay them $1M signing bonuses and contract with them to flip burgers at $2M for 3 years. Instead they rely on a sympathetic judge and that judge's interpretation of labor law. Well, the owners are astute businessmen, or they have astute advisors working for them. They know they can wait the players out if they choose to play hardball. The players have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they can not manage their finances despite the enormous paychecks they get. The owners simply need to file appeals and watch the players drop to their knees in a year or two. Hell, there are already players who are in serious financial distress. Instead, the owners keep coming to the table with reasonable offers that De Miller just pisses away. The owners don't have to have the money, but they are the only side trying to make this work. That's something else that sticks in my craw. If the players get more of the owner's money (and it is the owners money), 78% of them will still be destitute within 2 years of them being out of football. If the union really gave a damn, why wouldn't they help players manage their finanaces so the players could live very comfortably after their NFL careers are over? Teach these financial morans how to make their earnings last? This is like watching the public education battle. They think more money will cure all the problems, and all it ends up doing is wasting more money with no better results. The owners are very wealthy. No question. They are greedy. No question. But they are the owners and they have compensated players very very well, and the players have shown no capability of making their capital work for them so that they can live rich lives for their entire lives. Right now it's like watching a drunk sue for more booze, with the assurance that they will not get drunk any more if they get it, and besides they have a "right" to have someone buy them more booze. If we really want to discuss "fair", let's start by looking at the alternatives the players have if they do anything else beside play football. By that standard, the owners are being downright overwhelmingly generous. The players aren't just employees, they ARE the product. There's no way the owners could give the quality level of product to fans without the players, so it's really nothing like the situation you had in your work. The supply/demand for people who can do your job is entirely different than that of NFL caliber football player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Those bullet points don't match what is being reported on ESPN. Do all the owners have enough other income to just wait this out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The players aren't just employees, they ARE the product. There's no way the owners could give the quality level of product to fans without the players, so it's really nothing like the situation you had in your work. The supply/demand for people who can do your job is entirely different than that of NFL caliber football player. And a lot of these players have no other means of income, so they will have to come back. They may be the product, but without the owners, there is nobody to pay them millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nogohawk Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Is it just me, or do others just want to punch D Smith in the face. He keeps on saying "For the fans..." I think he is loving this "limelight" and drove it to the conclusion he intended months ago. There was never any intention of resolving the issues ... just drag it out longer. Before this, who ever really heard of him or felt he had anything useful to say. I had a lot more respect for Gene Upshaw (RIP) because he came from the players. Just my $.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The players aren't just employees, they ARE the product. There's no way the owners could give the quality level of product to fans without the players, so it's really nothing like the situation you had in your work. The supply/demand for people who can do your job is entirely different than that of NFL caliber football player. +1 BB, I actually do agree with most of what you said there (especially regarding the union actually doing something to help these guys not go from rich to broke), but it is a totally different situation here with the players. When you're talking about buying both the primary labor and the product, with competition for limited resources, then in a business sense that's alot closer to a buyout of a small company. I'm honestly through arguing for the players now (since none of us can say with any certainty whether any of the proposed offers have been "fair" or not) , but why does this have to turn into a bashing of guys, alot of whom came from poverty getting rich all of a sudden and not being able to handle their finances? Some people here treat it like it's a major character flaw, but it really shouldn't be a big shock why so many of these guys go from rags to riches and end up blowing their fortune. Plus there are plenty of guys like Elway who WERE smart about their money but went bankrupt by a Ponzi scheme or bad investment.... But what does any of that have to do with the negotiations, other than the owners probably have them by the balls? Their books are not the ones in question here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilly Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The players aren't just employees, they ARE the product. There's no way the owners could give the quality level of product to fans without the players, so it's really nothing like the situation you had in your work. The supply/demand for people who can do your job is entirely different than that of NFL caliber football player. Completely disagree. The game is the product. That's like saying that when Joe Montana, Dan Marino and John Elway retired, the league would/should have just packed it in and shut it down. Guess what? Along came Peyton, Tom and Drew. There is always somebody else who will do your job. Fans are team allegient, not player allegient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 any chance that everyone together who has posted here makes more then 1 player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Chief Dicks 6 figures is like the league minimum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 know a Qb that went to the last cut for the Packers and i believe he walked away with $40,000.00 just for camp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJW Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Issues which prevented a new NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement from being reached: • The NFL demanded a multi-billion dollar giveback and refused to provide any legitimate financial information to justify it. • The NFL's offer on March 7 to give the NFLPA a single sheet of numbers was NOT financial disclosure. The players' accountants and bankers advised that the "offered" information was meaningless: only two numbers for each year. • The NFL wanted to turn the clock back on player compensation by four years, moving them back to where they were in 2007. • The NFL offered no proposal at all for long-term share of revenues. • NFL demanded 100 (percent) of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years. • The NFL refused to meet the players on significant changes to in-season, offseason or preseason health and safety rules. • The NFL kept on the table its hypocritical demand for an 18-game season, despite its public claims to be working toward improving the heath and safety of players. • The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers' compensation benefits for injured players. • The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans -- into players' fourth and fifth years THE PLAYERS WANT TO KEEP PLAYING: • The players offered repeatedly to continue working under the existing CBA, but were rejected by the NFL five times. • Despite publicly admitting no club was losing money, that TV ratings, sponsorship money, etc. were at an all time high, the NFL continued to insist on an 18-percent rollback in the players' share of revenues and continue to deny the NFLPA's request for justification. You've got to be kidding me. Every single point is completely false. The final offer by the NFL asked for $283M back per year over the next four years, $1.13B total. That was down from their initial desire for $1B back each year. I won't even bother with the rest of this crap. Try getting your info from credible sources, not some obviously biased anonymous blog with no sourcing. Edit: My bad, it's an NFLPA run blog. Not so anonymous I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.