Why the Players' union turned down the NFL

[fitzkek]

Regardless where the current players would go, that's a short term thing. The two main questions in maintaining the sustainability of a league are - 1) where would the future talent go, and 2) who would the TV contracts follow?

 

We can debate this 'til the cows come home, but my money would remain firmly on the existing ownership/league on both fronts.

 

I do kind of like the notion of the NFL "decertifying" itself as a league and saying F U players. We're starting this new league and if you want in, you can play under OUR rules.

 

Won't happen, but I would LOVE it if it were doable.

Who in their right mind would watch that chit product? I pay to see the players on the field. They do things out there that normal people can't. That's why they get paid the way they do. You and I get paid what we get paid, because others can be trained to do what we do. I can't train to be in the NFL, unless of coures it's a bunch of hacks and have beens from the local flag league out there ballin'.

[Cunning Runt]

Confused here. All of the people against the NFLPA* must be in favor of a lockout? Seems odd. I want football. The owners are taking it away from the players and us, the fans!

 

I am ultimately in favor of having football as well, but it's my opinion that ownership was willing to negotiate a deal, albeit after opting out of the current CBA, and that the NFLPA wasn't interested in negotiating, preferring to try to use the courts to maintain the status quo.

 

In a nutshell, I disagree with where you place blame.

[fitzkek]

I am ultimately in favor of having football as well, but it's my opinion that ownership was willing to negotiate a deal, albeit after opting out of the current CBA, and that the NFLPA wasn't interested in negotiating, preferring to try to use the courts to maintain the status quo.

 

In a nutshell, I disagree with where you place blame.

I disagree with your disagreedness.

[Cunning Runt]

I disagree with your disagreedness.

 

[fitzkek]

[Swiss Cheezhead]

I was trying not to get deep into this, but when someone like Bronco Billy -- who I think is a consistent source of intelligent perspective on this board -- is being so irrational, I just have to respond.

 

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.

 

Pure bitterness. You couldn't file an injunction? That may be, but you could have sued your boss. That's your right as an American. You didn't take legal action, probably because (a) it wasn't worth your trouble and (b ) you probably would have lost your case. In the players' world, neither of those things are true.

 

You also didn't sit down for 14 days of negotiations with your owners to see how much they could improve their "offer," probably because you don't have that kind of leverage at your company. The players do.

 

They aren't acting like they have the "right" to play. They only have the right to have their case heard in court. They aren't the first group of employees to exercise that right.

 

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.

 

Maybe they'll have to find another job, Scrooge. Some of them already are lining up second jobs. And until you individually analyze Judge Doty's decisions, I don't want to hear about his "sympathies" to the unions. He actually used to be a strong anti-union lawyer before taking a spot on the bench, and his colleagues vehemently deny any pro-labor bias.

 

Do you realize that, if Doty hadn't been involved in the 1990s, the NFL would not be the game we know and love today? We, the fans, should be thanking Judge Doty for helping to resolve prior disputes and helping the owners see the forest through the trees.

 

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.

 

Again, if you think all the owners have to do is "file appeals and watch the players drop to their knees," then what's the problem? For all I know, that's exactly what's going to happen, which would prove that the union made a really poor decision. Do I believe that's what's going to happen? No.

 

The owners "keep coming to the table with reasonable offers." I'm starting to think the NFL press desk has been your sole source of information on this process. Go find a real reporter's account of how we've gotten to this point. I can provide several links that will paint an interesting picture for you.

 

Start here: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-d...ctedunion031111

 

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.

 

Are you serious? You're on the owners' side because the players don't know how to spend money wisely? That's an EXTREMELY hazardous argument you're making there, BB. You're better than that.

 

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.

 

Dude, do you own a bunch of stock in an NFL team? "Overwhelmingly generous"? Wow.

 

The owners agreed to the CBA that's been in place for four years. They decided that, instead of letting that agreement run its course, they preferred to opt out and endure the ugly labor negotiaion process. The players, in turn, prefer to decline the owners' last proposals -- all of which were less "generous" than the previous one -- and endure the ugly legal process.

 

What you're obviously forgetting is that the owners still had an option. They didn't have to push the lockout button. In fact, they could lift the lockout right now. All the NFL has to do is run their league without all the labor rules, essentially letting the owners operate like college athletic directors with billion-dollar checkbooks. They don't want to do that, because they recognize the health of the league (i.e., their overall profitability is higher) when they're working with a labor union. Hence, the union has a certain amount of power in the equation. All they're doing is leveraging it.

 

I hope y'all understand that I'm NOT a pro-union guy in general. But there's just no question that, in this case, the owners are being ridiculous.

 

There are a handful of reporters/columnists whom I trust, and ALL of them -- plus everybody else, for that matter -- believe this is all the owners' fault. These are smart people who know the NFL business and who've been paying very close attention to the entire process. They have sources on both sides of the issue. And with virtually no exception, these people have all decided that the owners are to blame.

 

Are the players completely blameless? No. And I think De Smith is not the ideal union boss, especially in terms of public relations. But if he wins the court case, none of that will matter.

 

So, basically, BB -- if you're not going to pay attention to all the details of this issue, then you shouldn't have such a strong opinion about it. First, it's not good for your heart. Second, rest assured that a uniquely American process, including a federally appointed judge, will play out…and we'll all get exactly what we deserve.

[Square]

Well said Swiss.

 

Are you serious? You're on the owners' side because the players don't know how to spend money wisely? That's an EXTREMELY hazardous argument you're making there, BB. You're better than that.

 

 

I think the above statement adds fuel to quite a few of the pro-owners folk around here. They have issues with these kids wasting their opportunities (since we couldn't get them) and blowing their money (that we can't make) and it grinds their gears and clouds otherwise rational people's judgment. That's the only way I can explain some of the people who think owners are required to make more (like it's a moral imperative) regardless of whether they took minimal risk or have been paid back well over the years for the risks they took a long time ago. They also seem to forget that the NFL is doing pretty well considering it is operating in one of the worst economies in 50 years. IMO this is a cash grab by the owners and we'll see how it plays out. They (similar to many politicians) are using the current economy as leverage to further their agenda and set themselves up for more money in the future. I don't necessarily blame them, but as a fan driven sport they risk alienating fans like me with this BS.

[Cowboyz1]

First of all I agree the owners are pissed at the way they see there money being pissed away on dollar bills thown around a bar or some idiot shooting his leg with a gun down his sweats. They figure they can do more with it. I can see that. I also don't get how the Owners can possbily expect a union to go backwards and take less when the game is providing so much more. That doesn't make much sense either. As far as asking th owners to open their books is rediculous. No way is that gonna happen. There's lies, damn lies, and then there's financials. Opening the books would throw this whole thing into a never ending interpretation of what's an expense and what's not and finding the bottom line on each team would be so hidden behind mountains of shell corps, trusts, and partnerships, you'd have a easier time finding balls on a snake. So the books thing is just a PR ploy for the ingnorant. So the brass tax is how long can each side suffer. My money is on the owners because the players union is weak. Most players aren't rich and the ones that are don't care to support their brothers. While the Owners will loan eachother a billion or two to get by. I just don't see the players winning this one but I can see the owners coming back to the table with the same deal shaved a bit so the players can save face. The players make the game but the Owners well, own it.

 

Billionares vs. Millionares Billionares win. Simple math folks, simple math. Gotta have money to fight money.

 

If the union was smart they would pool the money over the years from all the players like Social Security and be ready to keep getting paid for times like this. Say a percentage of your bonus and game check. All working for a day like this since the last lock out. They would be ready for a long drag out negotioation and they could make the Owners feel some pain. But no they don't have the cohesiveness for a plan like that. Imagine a Billion dollars at the disposal of the players union so that everyone under the current CBA gets a monthly pay check and health care continues. The game would then change because nobody would begin to starve right away. The owners would have to start digging in their pockets after a while and that could change everything.

[nuke'em ttg]

Might be wise for DMD to start "Gasoline Alley" or "The Penalty Box"