Goodell goes right to the players

[Bronco Billy]

With the folks who currently are running the NFLPA* (whoever they may be) showing no inclination to continue negotiations and with the NFL very anxious to continue negotiations, Commissioner Roger Goodell has taken his case directly to the rank and file.

 

Goodell has sent a letter to every player (and the league office has sent a copy to every agent) explaining the terms of the league’s most recent proposal. We’ve obtained a copy of it.

 

“We want you to understand the offer that we made to the NFLPA,” Goodell wrote. “The proposal was made to avoid a work stoppage. Each passing day puts our game and our shared economics further at risk. We believe the offer presented a strong and fair basis for continuing negotiations, allowing the new league year and free agency to begin, and growing our game in the years to come.”

 

Goodell then summarizes the key elements of the proposal: maximum salary and benefits per team of $141 million per club in 2011, with maximum salary and benefits per team of $161 million in 2014; free agency for players with four or more accrued season; reduced draft-choice compensation for restricted free agents; extensive changes in offseason workouts; reduction of preseason and regular-season padded practices; increased days off; retention of the 16-game season through 2012 with no change to 18 games without the players’ agreement; expanded injury guarantees, with up to $1 million in the year after an injury occurs; continuing medical coverage for life; immediate increases in pension for pre-1993 players; a new rookie wage scale that would make $300 million per draft class available for veteran pay and player benefits; abd external arbitration of all drug and steroids appeals.

 

“Working together, players and clubs have made the game great,” Goodell added. “Our fans want us to find common ground, settle our differences, and come to a fair agreement. I have met with many of you since becoming Commissioner. You know of my respect and admiration for you as men and players. We need to come together, and soon.

 

“In that spirit, we are prepared to negotiate a full agreement that would incorporate these features and other progressive changes that would benefits players, clubs, and fans. Only through collective bargaining will we reach that kind of agreement. Our goal is to make our league even better than it is today, with the benefits shared by all of us,” Goodell said.

 

And here’s the bottom line — literally and figuratively: “I hope you will encourage your Union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement.”

 

 

link

[Bronco Billy]

Of course that would be Goodell (although Goddell may be more appropriate... )

 

BJ, a little help here please to cover up my fat-fingeredness

[Big John]

Of course that would be Goodell (although Goddell may be more appropriate... )

 

BJ, a little help here please to cover up my fat-fingeredness

done

[Bronco Billy]

A better than 10% increase in player compensation over the last capped year and then another more than 14% increase next year. More days off. Paid health care for life.

 

What's your company doing for its employees in the next couple of years (assuming you are employed right now)?

[Bronco Billy]

done

 

Thanks GB

[Whiskey Pimp]

I can't wait to see how De Smith twists this.

[tazinib1]

Smith has got these players so spun up into believing they are being mistreated and underpaid its laughable. If this continues and some players start to realize they have been duped and start seeing checks disappear and bills mounting up, I wonder if they will start second guessing who they elected as there team player rep. I wonder if there will start to be dissension within teams on how to proceed. It could be very dangerous ground some teams are headed for. Team unity and chemistry could be damaged beyond repair...and don't tell me this is all business. Players who are not in the top % of earning WILL hold a grudge. All because of a POS who knows nothing of the game who is leading them down a path of self destruction.

Edited March 18, 2011 by tazinib1

[jetsfan]

A better than 10% increase in player compensation over the last capped year and then another more than 14% increase next year. More days off. Paid health care for life.

 

What's your company doing for its employees in the next couple of years (assuming you are employed right now)?

 

5 year pay freeze with zero promotions if you keep your job

massive layoffs expected this summer when the Shuttle retires.

[MorningMud]

At least Goodell is proving his worth. Its unfortunate that the other side is proving what they are made of too...

[Bronco Billy]

I like how Goodell continues to refer to the collective as a Union.

 

I still don't understand how they can decertify and continue to act as a union?

 

He's using the decrtification to reach out to each player without the NFLPA being able to buffer it, unless the NFLPA wants to expose further that its decertification is a sham (as it did when it proclaimed that incoming players would not attend the draft and then quickly backpedaled)

[electricrelish]

What I find so strange is that a lot of posters have complained about unions in general. They say they don't like the player's union. These same people got mad when the union decertified, so I'm confused. I thought they would be happy since this particular players' union is supposedly asking too much. They're not business partners, they're employees, right?

 

I've even read someone write, "business is business" in regards to the NFL. So now we have a good old fashion owners and employees relationship. No nasty union can get in the way. Now, the owners can do business with players one on one. So what's the problem?

 

Oh wait, that's right. This business model doesn't work without a player's union because the NFL wants a draft. They don't want individuals to be able to go and work for whichever team they choose to. Is that why the NFL locked out the players?

[Bronco Billy]

Right, I understand why and how Goodell is doing what he's doing, but it seems like player reps and 'union' reps are still telling players what to do?

 

The question isn't whether the union is still acting as a union - it is - but whether there is enough tangible evidence to demonstrate it in court. That would turn the tables to the owners' favor very quickly and could even be grounds for summary dismissal if the evidence were strong enough*.

 

* - I am not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday inn Express recently

[Bronco Billy]

Oh wait, that's right. This business model doesn't work without a player's union because the NFL wants a draft. They don't want individuals to be able to go and work for whichever team they choose to. Is that why the NFL locked out the players?

 

 

Whoa, there. The draft is part of the business model that is the NFL. Individuals can choose to go and work at whatever employer they wish, but if they want to work for the NFL they have to comply with its rules. It's also part of the reason they have such high compensation. It's that the NFL is a monopoly that is the essence here, and whether its uniqueness and value enable it to be allowed for an anti-trust exemption. The inherent nature of competition and the marketability of that competiton that has an irreplacable value would preclude that the draft is allowable.

 

Tell me, suppose for example you were an engineer and URS had an opening, but the opening was in Fargo, ND. Could you sue URS because they didn't make the same position available for you in San Diego, CA because that is where you wanted to work? Or could you decide that you didn't want to work in Fargo and therefore you were instead forced to take a job with a lesser company at lower compensation that did have an opening in San Diego?

 

The players have the same option as the latter.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Skilly]

I think the players feel that every word that comes out of the commissioner's mouth is a lie, that' he's just a puppet for the owners who are trying to give the players the shaft. I'm afraid this open letter might backfire on Goodell, and unite the players even further into following D. Smith off the cliff.

[kcmast]

What I find so strange is that a lot of posters have complained about unions in general. They say they don't like the player's union. These same people got mad when the union decertified, so I'm confused. I thought they would be happy since this particular players' union is supposedly asking too much. They're not business partners, they're employees, right?

 

I've even read someone write, "business is business" in regards to the NFL. So now we have a good old fashion owners and employees relationship. No nasty union can get in the way. Now, the owners can do business with players one on one. So what's the problem?

 

Oh wait, that's right. This business model doesn't work without a player's union because the NFL wants a draft. They don't want individuals to be able to go and work for whichever team they choose to. Is that why the NFL locked out the players?

They continue to act as a union and will reform when this is over. Decertification means nothing to me.

[Bronco Billy]

I think the players feel that every word that comes out of the commissioner's mouth is a lie, that' he's just a puppet for the owners who are trying to give the players the shaft. I'm afraid this open letter might backfire on Goodell, and unite the players even further into following D. Smith off the cliff.

 

Tell me, if you and a couple of guys you work with had this kind of money (plus benefits) at stake, wouldn't you sit down with someone who is independent of the situation - even if you had to pay that someone - and try to figure out whether you were getting a decent shake, and then act in your own behalf? Most especially if you simply weren't very good with the numbers? How do these guys not go out and hire independent actuaries to get some good advice?

[electricrelish]

Whoa, there. The draft is part of the business model that is the NFL. Individuals can choose to go and work at whatever employer they wish, but if they want to work for the NFL they have to comply with its rules. It's also part of the reason they have such high compensation. It's that the NFL is a monopoly that is the essence here, and whether its uniqueness and value enable it to be allowed for an anti-trust exemption. The inherent nature of competition and the marketability of that competiton that has an irreplacable value would preclude that the draft is allowable.

 

Tell me, suppose for example you were an engineer and URS had an opening, but the opening was in Fargo, ND. Could you sue URS because they didn't make the same position available for you in San Diego, CA because that is where you wanted to work? Or could you decide that you didn't want to work in Fargo and therefore you were instead forced to take a job with a lesser company at lower compensation that did have an opening in San Diego?

 

The players have the same option as the latter.

 

OK, thanks for the breakdown. So basically, you're saying that the players' litigation holds no water. Right? Is it that black and white?

Still, why did the NFL lockout the players?

[Caveman_Nick]

Here's a question: Will the NFL try to argue in the Anti-Trust suit that the decertification is indeed a sham ( I think so), because the players have every intention of reforming the union if/when they get what they want (not sure how factually demonstrable this is, but we all know it's true), and if so will that be grounds for dismissal?

[Bronco Billy]

OK, thanks for the breakdown. So basically, you're saying that the players' litigation holds no water. Right? Is it that black and white?

Still, why did the NFL lockout the players?

 

Actually, I did mention the monopoly part. At least I thought I did. Let me check. Yep, I did.

 

The NFL locked out the players because the players chose to discontinue negotiations. Is it your contention that a business is forced to open its facilities to employees even if there is no contract between the two parties?

 

I'm saying that while the NFL operates under illegal business standards that it does so for the benefit of all involved (unless you are trying to start up a new league). The employees are not diminished by the illegal practice - in fact, they are greatly enhanced. So is the product being offered, which is beneficial to all consumers of the product.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

Here's a question: Will the NFL try to argue in the Anti-Trust suit that the decertification is indeed a sham ( I think so), because the players have every intention of reforming the union if/when they get what they want (not sure how factually demonstrable this is, but we all know it's true), and if so will that be grounds for dismissal?

 

It's my decidedly un-legal opinion that if the NFL can show that the decertification is a sham that the union can not lever anti-trust legislation against the league, and therefore the suit would have no basis. That would seem to be grounds for a summary judgment.

[electricrelish]

Here's a question: Will the NFL try to argue in the Anti-Trust suit that the decertification is indeed a sham ( I think so), because the players have every intention of reforming the union if/when they get what they want (not sure how factually demonstrable this is, but we all know it's true), and if so will that be grounds for dismissal?

 

I thought they could not argue that point due to an earlier agreement. In the 1993 Antitrust lawsuit regarding Reggie White, the NFL insisted on the right to terminate the 1993 antitrust agreement, if the players did not reform a union within thirty days. To get that provision, the NFL agreed that, “if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration,” the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was “a sham or otherwise ineffective.”

 

Whether this agreement will apply is the root of it all. The players must feel awfully confident with this point, because if the sham argument is allowed, then the players' leverage is in trouble. Guys like Chester Pitts should keep his mouth shut. Stop acting like you're still a union.

Edited March 18, 2011 by electricrelish

[Bronco Billy]

I thought they could not argue that point due to an earlier agreement. In the 1993 Antitrust lawsuit regarding Reggie White, the NFL insisted on the right to terminate the 1993 antitrust agreement, if the players did not reform a union within thirty days. To get that provision, the NFL agreed that, “if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration,” the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was “a sham or otherwise ineffective.”

 

You seem to have more knowledge on this than I do. Could the agreement been modified in subsequent CBAs? I know the playres decertified before the extension on the CBA expired - and I believe they had to do that or they would have been required to wait 6 months to file a suit. Would that affect the language of what you posted above?

Edited March 18, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[electricrelish]

You seem to have more knowledge on this than I do. Could the agreement been modified in subsequent CBAs? I know the playres decertified before the extension on the CBA expired - and I believe they had to do that or they would have been required to wait 6 months to file a suit. Would that affect the language of what you posted above?

 

Wow, this issue is complicated. The NFL's legal team will argue that the "sham" argument can be brought up because the 1993 agreement is only valid if the union decertified after the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (SSA). expired. The players union decertified before the SSA expired.

 

Now, if you ask the players' legal team, they will have a different interpretation., so it all comes down to how the judge sees it. I just think the players are treading on dangerous ground when the general public believes it is a sham. If the judge does too, then the players may have made a huge mistake.

 

Info Source

Edited March 18, 2011 by electricrelish

[Bronco Billy]

Wow, this issue is complicated. The NFL's legal team will argue that the "sham" argument can be brought up because the 1993 agreement is only valid if the union decertified after the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (SSA). expired. The players union decertified before the SSA expired.

 

Now, if you ask the players' legal team, they will have a different interpretation., so it all comes down to how the judge sees it. I just think the players are treading on dangerous ground when the general public believes it is a sham. If the judge does too, then the players may have made a huge mistake.

 

Info Source

 

Nice find.

 

It looks like the owners found a point of leverage. The players were in a position where the had to decertify before the expiration or they would have been looking at September as being the earliest they could file a suit. But by decertifying before the expiration that allowed the owners the ability to go after the decertification as being a sham. Then we have the NFLPA still functioning and actively petitioning players, incuding one named in the suit, to disrupt league events such as the draft after the expiration.

 

You ain't kidding about this being complicated.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[tazinib1]

Legalities aside, I blame Smith for this entire mess. While I agree both sides operated in bad faith with intent to decertify/lockout from the beginning, Smith has woven a shield over the players eyes. The players are hoping the American public sides with them? Please. They are so out of touch with the reality in this country its laughable. They seriously think the American public will side with players that are incredibly coddled and paid extraordinary amounts of money? Gone are the days of long soup kitchen lines. Gone are the days when you see THOUSANDS of men/women lined up for 1 job. Why? We now have automated unemployment/food stamps and government aide. We now have section 8 housing and those are zoned away, nicely tucked out of eyesight. There is no SHOCK factor of the state of the unemployment/poverty rate of this country. The players seem to think they are being mistreated and underpaid when the unemployment rate of this country remains at a disturbing number. I'm sorry players, you picked the wrong issue for us to stand behind you on. We have long held you in great regard, but remember this: As much as the American public loves to root for the underdog, we also love to see the high and mighty fall. Keep it up, keep listening to the vail of sham that is being regurgitated down your throat by a man that has ZERO experience in the game you and us all love, and you will find nothing more than yourself in the same boat as Joe Public.

 

I commented on a thread a while back (don't remember where or when) that I missed Gene Upshaw. I got blasted for that How many of you guys that blasted me then feel the same way now? That man was a HOF PLAYER, a man who had spend his entire life in the game that he fought for. I had respect for that. I felt the players plight when he spoke up for them. I feel nothing but finding myself being falsely led by a man who is an outsider, trying to convince me I must feel sympathy for a group of highly paid young men that are being in the middle of a gross injustice. Smith...you my friend, are the sham. You are the catalyst behind what could be perhaps the biggest sports let down of all time. It will be YOUR face that people will point to when asked what happened to the game of football in 2011. Yours Smith....just you.