Lockout

[Square]

This is about as good an outcome it could have been without an agreement. They could have extended it 48 hours but 24 hours tells me they are hammering out language. I like it.

Sounds like good news. Maybe all these rich mofos will not fck this up.

[DMD]

It is probably good news. It is a sign to me that whatever happens tomorrow probably happens quickly.

[sundaynfl]

This is about as good an outcome it could have been without an agreement. They could have extended it 48 hours but 24 hours tells me they are hammering out language. I like it.

 

I hope so... but it seems wierd, last time there was a bunch of "here's our offer, take it or leave it." Back and forth!

[Wally]

The way that I understand the ruling on the $4 billion is that the last CBA granted the owners the right to negotiate contracts on behalf of the players, and in good faith.

 

Basically, since revenues are shared, the players and owners are partners to a degree. Also, to simplify things, the players granted the owners the right to negotiate for them, instead of having a third party at all negotiations to represent the players' interest. So the owners are supposed to negotiate the best deal possible for everyone in the NFL. Instead of getting the most money possible, the owners made a deal with the TV stations where the NFL would take less money per year, and in the unlikely event of a lockout, the TV stations would agree to pay an extra $4 billion to the owners, which is basically money that was forgone in the past. Since the players are locked out, and not getting paid, this $4 billion would not be shared and the owners would essentially be getting the same amount of money during a lockout as they would in a regular season.

 

The judge ruled that this deal violated the "good faith" clause of the old CBA, b/c the owners took less money (and thus the players got less money) in order to insure the owners in the event of a lock out. They negotiated in bad faith.

 

While I'm generally on the owners' side in all of this, I think this was a pretty shady move on their part. If a new CBA would have been agreed to, this side deal would have never been discovered...at least not until the next CBA expired and the owners tried to cash in this insurance policy.

[detlef]

The way that I understand the ruling on the $4 billion is that the last CBA granted the owners the right to negotiate contracts on behalf of the players, and in good faith.

 

Basically, since revenues are shared, the players and owners are partners to a degree. Also, to simplify things, the players granted the owners the right to negotiate for them, instead of having a third party at all negotiations to represent the players' interest. So the owners are supposed to negotiate the best deal possible for everyone in the NFL. Instead of getting the most money possible, the owners made a deal with the TV stations where the NFL would take less money per year, and in the unlikely event of a lockout, the TV stations would agree to pay an extra $4 billion to the owners, which is basically money that was forgone in the past. Since the players are locked out, and not getting paid, this $4 billion would not be shared and the owners would essentially be getting the same amount of money during a lockout as they would in a regular season.

 

The judge ruled that this deal violated the "good faith" clause of the old CBA, b/c the owners took less money (and thus the players got less money) in order to insure the owners in the event of a lock out. They negotiated in bad faith.

 

While I'm generally on the owners' side in all of this, I think this was a pretty shady move on their part. If a new CBA would have been agreed to, this side deal would have never been discovered...at least not until the next CBA expired and the owners tried to cash in this insurance policy.

So, in other words, you're saying that the opinion that this $4 billion insurance policy was a sleazy move that violated the spirit of the CBA is not unique to myopic fools who can't comprehend the obvious and simply hate management for no good reason?

 

What a revelation.

[Bronco Billy]

So, in other words, you're saying that the opinion that this $4 billion insurance policy was a sleazy move that violated the spirit of the CBA is not unique to myopic fools who can't comprehend the obvious and simply hate management for no good reason?

 

What a revelation.

 

It was sleazy, and just as sleazy as decertification. The difference being that this is a new tactic for the owners whereas the players have decartified and reformed the union before. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

It is probably good news. It is a sign to me that whatever happens tomorrow probably happens quickly.

 

I htink the only thing that happens today is that they agree to extend the current agreement another 5 to 7 days while each sides talks indepdently with the mediator.

 

But it beats the hell out of the alternative...

[WaterMan]

So, the end of the year comes around and I go to my guys, "Hey guys, we worked our asses off, but there just wasn't as much money as I hoped, so there's no profits to share. Then, they discover about my little side deal that I negotiated with the customer because I'm the OWNER and, according to you, I can do whatever the hell I want. Do they have the right to be pissed? Or is that just some "evil-corporation-working-man fairy tale and they should just shut up and fall in line?

 

They should just fall in line and understand that their boss/corporation owns them. If they don't like, they can join the 10% that are unemployed.

 

Edited March 4, 2011 by WaterMan

[Wally]

So, in other words, you're saying that the opinion that this $4 billion insurance policy was a sleazy move that violated the spirit of the CBA is not unique to myopic fools who can't comprehend the obvious and simply hate management for no good reason?

 

What a revelation.

 

Not really sure what your point is, b/c that sentence reads like a Charlie Sheen quote.

 

What I'm saying that roughly half of that $4 billion technically belongs to the players. The owners didn't violate the "spirit" of the contract, they violated their fiduciary duty to the players.

 

I think that the owners have the right to do whatever they want to with THEIR money, but part of this is the players' money. It was the owners' obligation under the contract to get the maximum amount from the TV stations, which they didn't do. Instead they took less money in an attempt to insulate themselves from the financial fallout that a work stoppage will create.

 

They negotiated in bad faith.

[detlef]

It was sleazy, and just as sleazy as decertification. The difference being that this is a new tactic for the owners whereas the players have decartified and reformed the union before. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.

Odd, in response to the last five post of mine, you've either tried to change the subject or argue that this was just "hard nosed business" and went so far as to basically insult my intelligence because I didn't see it that way.

 

Why the change of heart?

 

This is the part I don't get. I've made it very clear that I'm not pro-labor in this argument. Rather, that I'm not pro-owner either. I think both sides need to be reasonable here. But guys like you and Cunning Runt see anyone who's not lock-step on the side of ownership as vehemently pro-labor and thinks the owners should make nothing. That we're all living in a pro-labor fantasy world because we're not ready to give the owners a free pass to do what they want. Or at least, like it. I mean, they can do what they want, but forgive me for not applauding it.

 

Why do the owners charge as much for tickets, hot dogs and beer? Because the evil players make too much.

 

Why did the owners negotiate in bad faith with the networks? Because the evil players broke up the union.

 

Why are players now stipulating that they want their brains donated to science so concussions can be studied, but that they want someone other than the NFL to conduct those studies? Well, probably because they're evil.

 

These poor owners. Where would they be without our guidance and sympathy.

[detlef]

Not really sure what your point is, b/c that sentence reads like a Charlie Sheen quote.

 

What I'm saying that roughly half of that $4 billion technically belongs to the players. The owners didn't violate the "spirit" of the contract, they violated their fiduciary duty to the players.

 

I think that the owners have the right to do whatever they want to with THEIR money, but part of this is the players' money. It was the owners' obligation under the contract to get the maximum amount from the TV stations, which they didn't do. Instead they took less money in an attempt to insulate themselves from the financial fallout that a work stoppage will create.

 

They negotiated in bad faith.

I actually agree with you.

 

I've just spent about five posts arguing the exact point you made with another guy here and he kept saying that I was in some fantasy world to think that the owners had any obligation to negotiate the best deal they could for all parties.

 

So, my response to you was really directed at BroncoBilly.

[Bronco Billy]

Why the change of heart?

 

If you've read my other posts, you'd know that my position has been consistent with this.

[detlef]

If you've read my other posts, you'd know that my position has been consistent with this.

 

Really?

 

As far as any deal that the owners make with the networks, that is their perrogative. They are the OWNERS - something you still can't seem to grasp - and they can negotiate any deal they like because it is their business. The players are EMPLOYEES, and therefore they do not have any say in those negotiations. If the owners want to build insurance into the deal for a lower cost because they and the service provider have both identified a tangible risk, that's an entirely reasonable and normal business transaction.

[Wally]

I actually agree with you.

 

I've just spent about five posts arguing the exact point you made with another guy here and he kept saying that I was in some fantasy world to think that the owners had any obligation to negotiate the best deal they could for all parties.

 

So, my response to you was really directed at BroncoBilly.

 

My bad. I really wasn't sure what was being said.

 

I think people forget that the owners agreed to get the best deal for all parties involved in the last CBA. They agreed to do one thing, and then did the total opposite, which is wrong.

 

I personally think the players (at least the rookies) are way overpaid. I don't have any problem with Manning, Revis, etc cashing in b/c they've earned it. Those guys generate a ridiculous amount of revenue for the NFL, and probably work 80 hour weeks when you factor in film study, weight training, playbook study, practice, games, rehab, etc. But I cringe every time I hear that some kid that's never played a down in the NFL gets a $30 million signing bonus. If you start someone at $10 million a year when they're unproven, what do you think they're going to do once they've become a star in the league? The thought process goes something like this: "If I was worth $10 million a year as a no-named rookie, I must be worth $50 million a year now that I've been in the league for a while." That type of thinking is only human nature, so I can''t blame the players. It has to be stopped before it ever starts, ie a rookie salary cap.

 

Also, the Dan Snyders and Al Davises of the world don't help matters by overpaying for big name free agents. But that's their prerogative. If they want to piss away money on guys like Haynesworth, more power to them. They've made that money, they get to spend it however they like.

[detlef]

My bad. I really wasn't sure what was being said.

 

I think people forget that the owners agreed to get the best deal for all parties involved in the last CBA. They agreed to do one thing, and then did the total opposite, which is wrong.

 

I personally think the players (at least the rookies) are way overpaid. I don't have any problem with Manning, Revis, etc cashing in b/c they've earned it. Those guys generate a ridiculous amount of revenue for the NFL, and probably work 80 hour weeks when you factor in film study, weight training, playbook study, practice, games, rehab, etc. But I cringe every time I hear that some kid that's never played a down in the NFL gets a $30 million signing bonus. If you start someone at $10 million a year when they're unproven, what do you think they're going to do once they've become a star in the league? The thought process goes something like this: "If I was worth $10 million a year as a no-named rookie, I must be worth $50 million a year now that I've been in the league for a while." That type of thinking is only human nature, so I can''t blame the players. It has to be stopped before it ever starts, ie a rookie salary cap.

 

Also, the Dan Snyders and Al Davises of the world don't help matters by overpaying for big name free agents. But that's their prerogative. If they want to piss away money on guys like Haynesworth, more power to them. They've made that money, they get to spend it however they like.

Well, as long as there's a cap in place (or as long as the owners show the restraint that few predicted they would in the un-capped year), it doesn't much matter which specific players get paid what, because they're all bound by the size of the pot. So, for every player who breaks the bank, some other player gets pushed into a minimum salary. It's all a wash.

 

I absolutely agree that top 10 rookies get way too much (but it really tumbles down to a far more reasonable range pretty quickly after that). And, I've said before that I can't see why the NFLPA would fight very hard on this, provided the owners have to spend that money on other players anyway.

[Cunning Runt]

Odd, in response to the last five post of mine, you've either tried to change the subject or argue that this was just "hard nosed business" and went so far as to basically insult my intelligence because I didn't see it that way.

 

Why the change of heart?

 

This is the part I don't get. I've made it very clear that I'm not pro-labor in this argument. Rather, that I'm not pro-owner either. I think both sides need to be reasonable here. But guys like you and Cunning Runt see anyone who's not lock-step on the side of ownership as vehemently pro-labor and thinks the owners should make nothing. That we're all living in a pro-labor fantasy world because we're not ready to give the owners a free pass to do what they want. Or at least, like it. I mean, they can do what they want, but forgive me for not applauding it.

 

Why do the owners charge as much for tickets, hot dogs and beer? Because the evil players make too much.

 

Why did the owners negotiate in bad faith with the networks? Because the evil players broke up the union.

 

Why are players now stipulating that they want their brains donated to science so concussions can be studied, but that they want someone other than the NFL to conduct those studies? Well, probably because they're evil.

 

These poor owners. Where would they be without our guidance and sympathy.

 

 

Easy stallion. I'm pro-ownership fo sure, but show me one time where I've characterized you or anyone else in any way, pro or con. I want ownership to break the union, I really do, and that's not going to change, but I just want you to be clear that I have not characterized you in any way.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Cunning Runt

[detlef]

Easy stallion. I'm pro-ownership fo sure, but show me one time where I've characterized you or anyone else in any way, pro or con. I want ownership to break the union, I really do, and that's not going to change, but I just want you to be clear that I have not characterized you in any way.

Does is count if you agree with someone who has?

 

Of course, that doesn't fit into your evil-corporation/saintly-working-man fairy tale, does it?

 

To which you replied...

I think this pretty much expresses my take as well.

[NAUgrad]

"Two sides still roughly $25 million apart per team per year. Doesn't sound like much but it's a $750-$800 million gap that must be closed."

 

This is according to Adam Shefter's Twitter. Seems so easy to me. Split the money right down the middle. Deal done.

[Cunning Runt]

Does is count if you agree with someone who has?

 

 

 

To which you replied...

 

Gotcha. No, it doesn't count.

 

I'm not making any judgements one way or the other about other's opinions. I know what mine is and how I feel about things. I was agreeing with BB on the basic content of his post and didn't bother to edit out the part you quoted.

[detlef]

"Two sides still roughly $25 million apart per team per year. Doesn't sound like much but it's a $750-$800 million gap that must be closed."

 

This is according to Adam Shefter's Twitter. Seems so easy to me. Split the money right down the middle. Deal done.

Assuming that gap is there because both sides have equally come off their initial stance, sure.

[detlef]

Gotcha. No, it doesn't count.

 

I'm not making any judgements one way or the other about other's opinions. I know what mine is and how I feel about things. I was agreeing with BB on the basic content of his post and didn't bother to edit out the part you quoted.

Fair enough.

[NAUgrad]

Assuming that gap is there because both sides have equally come off their initial stance, sure.

True. Just hoping.

[kpholmes]

Yahoo's Mike Silver says today will go down in history as the most important day in player/owner relationships in professional sports.

 

Great read.

 

I for one, will be incessantly checking my phone throughout the day for updates.

[Bronco Billy]

Really?

 

You do understand that something can be sleazy and at the very same time be an effective bargaining tool, correct? Just like decertification by the players in order to expose owners to anti-trust legislation, all the while knowing they intend to reinstate the union and take full advantage of the massive profit generated due to the monopolistic nature of the NFL.

 

They are not mutually exclusive.

[detlef]

You do understand that something can be sleazy and at the very same time be an effective bargaining tool, correct? Just like decertification by the players in order to expose owners to anti-trust legislation, all the while knowing they intend to reinstate the union and take full advantage of the massive profit generated due to the monopolistic nature of the NFL.

 

They are not mutually exclusive.

Let's try this again.

 

This is what you said:

If the owners want to build insurance into the deal for a lower cost because they and the service provider have both identified a tangible risk, that's an entirely reasonable and normal business transaction.

That is a far cry from recognizing it as being sleazy but still a part of negotiating.