Lockout

[Bronco Billy]

Let's try this again.

 

This is what you said:

 

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

 

Uh, det, this is done in our industry as a regular part of the contracting process. I'm sorry you're not familiar with building insurance into a contract at a premium, but it does happen and happen often in the business world.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Ursa Majoris]

Uh, det, this is done in our industry as a regula part of the contracting process. I'm sorry you're not familiar with building insurance into a contract at a premium, but it does happen and happen often in hte business world.

Not when you have promised in good faith to share at a fixed percentage all the revenue you negotiate, then deliberately negotiate the sharing part low and keep a side account for yourself.

 

The players have a simple remedy for this next time out - insist on their own rep witnessing the negotiations.

[Bronco Billy]

Not when you have promised in good faith to share at a fixed percentage all the revenue you negotiate, then deliberately negotiate the sharing part low and keep a side account for yourself.

 

The players have a simple remedy for this next time out - insist on their own rep witnessing the negotiations.

 

How exactly did they keep a "side" account? They paid a premium for insurance - no more. Make it as machiavellian as you want. That it was a sleazy way to do business is undoubted, IMO, as is the decertification (which you, det, and others refuse to admit is just as sleazy when the players profit so greatly exactly because the NFL is run the way it is - as a monopoly with a draft, etc).

 

But to think this is exceptional in the big business world is foolish. And to blame only the owners when the players actively chose to tie their compensation strictly to a percentage of the revenues is just as foolish. That allowed owners to manage the books like this and put them at risk. The players could have avoided that risk by taking a slightly lower flat rate but opted to go for the big prize instead. They put themselves in the vulnerable position, and they have shown in the past that they will not bargain in good faith either when it suits them.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[NAUgrad]

"7 day extension confirmed. Talks through next Friday at 5 pm. Mediation likely to continue Monday."

 

Per Adam Shefter on Twitter. Maybe there is still hope.

[Wally]

How exactly did they keep a "side" account? They paid a premium for insurance - no more. Make it as machiavellian as you want. That it was a sleazy way to do business is undoubted, IMO, as is the decertification (which you, det, and others refuse to admit is just as sleazy when the players profit so greatly exactly because the NFL is run the way it is - as a monopoly with a draft, etc).

 

But to think this is exceptional in the big business world is foolish. And to blame only the owners when the players actively chose to tie their compensation strictly to a percentage of the revenues is just as foolish. That allowed owners to manage the books like this and put them at risk. The players could have avoided that risk by taking a slightly lower flat rate but opted to go for the big prize instead. They put themselves in the vulnerable position, and they have shown in the past that they will not bargain in good faith either when it suits them.

 

Those insurance premiums were paid from revenues that were supposed to be shared with the players. The owners insured themselves against a lockout partially with funds that were not there's to use. I don't have any problem with buying an insurance policy, but part of that insurance payout should go to the players, as it was paid for with their money.

 

Were the players' naive to believe that the owners would negotiate in good faith on their behalf? Absolutely.

 

Does that make what the owners did an acceptable form of business? Absolutely not.

 

I doubt that any worker in any industry would knowingly take less pay so that the boss can buy work stoppage insurance with that money. And I'm pretty sure that any group of employees would file a law suit if they found out that they had been deceived in such a manner. Its makes about as much sense as loaning someone a gun so that they can shoot you with it.

[piratesownninjas]

Decertification is a sleazy weapon the NFLPA had in there disposal.

The 4 Billion Dollar War chest the Owners tried to have set aside was equally as sleazy, but it gave them an equal weapon to decertification.

Both sides are both in the wrong.

Deflef and Bronco, you two hug it out.

[Wally]

Decertification is a sleazy weapon the NFLPA had in there disposal.

The 4 Billion Dollar War chest the Owners tried to have set aside was equally as sleazy, but it gave them an equal weapon to decertification.

Both sides are both in the wrong.

Deflef and Bronco, you two hug it out.

 

[detlef]

Those insurance premiums were paid from revenues that were supposed to be shared with the players. The owners insured themselves against a lockout partially with funds that were not there's to use. I don't have any problem with buying an insurance policy, but part of that insurance payout should go to the players, as it was paid for with their money.

 

Were the players' naive to believe that the owners would negotiate in good faith on their behalf? Absolutely.

 

Does that make what the owners did an acceptable form of business? Absolutely not.

 

I doubt that any worker in any industry would knowingly take less pay so that the boss can buy work stoppage insurance with that money. And I'm pretty sure that any group of employees would file a law suit if they found out that they had been deceived in such a manner. Its makes about as much sense as loaning someone a gun so that they can shoot you with it.

This

 

Decertification is a sleazy weapon the NFLPA had in there disposal.

The 4 Billion Dollar War chest the Owners tried to have set aside was equally as sleazy, but it gave them an equal weapon to decertification.

Both sides are both in the wrong.

Deflef and Bronco, you two hug it out.

Here's the thing, besides the fact that I'm really not "pro-player" in this whole thing. I've actually done a bit of research into the decert thing and, at least the first time it was used, I don't think it was just some temporary deal used specifically to gain leverage. At least, it's not like the decertified, got what they wanted, and then reformed right away. It was a couple of years, actually and there was a ton of stuff involved, like gaining the right to free agency. So to say that it was just a convenient loophole may be oversimplifying it a bit. At least when it happened back in the late 80s. That was not just a ploy to squeeze the owners for a few extra bucks, it was a ploy to completely change the game from a situation where players were really getting pretty screwed. Keep in mind, unlike now, guys were not making "eff you money".

 

Now, that doesn't mean that the cat is out of the bag in this regard and, this time around, the move would be well, sleazier, but as far as the "which came first" deal, the owners called the lock-out and did so, likely because they knew they had a $4 insurance policy that they got through very underhanded and borderline illegal means and it would seem it is the players who are fighting fire with fire, not the other way around.

[fitzkek]

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.

 

So you must be Pro-Slavery