stethant Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 How many pussified/programmed/pretentious responses can bpwallce get for his comment? Jeesus, some of you guys are a real piece of work. Agreed. I think he just used an extreme example to make a point. All these analogies to employers and employees miss the underlying truth - these groups are business partners. This has nothing to do with an employee you hire and fire at your discretion, as in most businesses. Yes, they are salaried but the players share multiple revenue streams with the owners. This is not a 50/50 split (owners have more risks), but it's definitely a partnership. If a business partner told you they needed to renegotiate some mutually agreed-upon contract because of x, y, or z, would you really just take them at their word? Why? If you're interested in breaking a union, ok, fine. If you think owners or players, depending on your viewpoint, are self-absorbed a-holes, fine. I don't see how any rational business person, though, would give up money on the table because another party to the discussions said "trust us." What smell test does that pass? The truth in all this media smoke-screen nonsense is that we have no idea, yet, who is truly being unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) It seems to me that the owners are not really presenting their case properly. When I sell an oil and gas prospect, I try to wow them with numbers and every fact that proves the propect economical for drilling. The owners are not bringing the facts to the table. How do they expect the Union to follow along if they don't provide all the facts? I am not saying who is right or wrong, but you have to bring your "wow" presentation to the selling table. The owners seem, IMO, to be half a$$ing their presentation. If I did that, noone would take my propects seriously. The owners should have come to the table with all the numbers for all to see. That is why this has failed. It is like the owners are not together in their presentation, or do not think they have to "sell" their negotiation. I think it is up to the owners to "sell" their idea to the Union, not the other way around. Edited March 12, 2011 by Scooby's Hubby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Just read this in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/sports/f...l/12nfl.html?hp At the start of negotiations, owners wanted an additional $1 billion, but the two sides entered the day just $640 million apart, and owners offered to split the difference, meaning that they would have taken $320 million per year, a third of their original demand. DeMaurice Smith, the head of the union, said that during negotiations, players had offered owners $550 million over four years — $137.5 million per year — without the demand for financial verification. They started off a billion dollars apart, and at the end they were less than $200 million per year apart. Good time to stop negotiating, naturally. Looks like both sides are clowns, and we're along for the ride... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 So it came down to the owners not wanting to open their books up? yes So we've concluded the owners made a fair and equitable offer because they say it was a good offer? do not believe anyone who is handling your money without proof to back up what they say I heard De Smith's press statement. I'm paraphrasing, but it was short and sweet and he said (again - not verbatim): "We will not consider extending the talks unless the owners turn over the last 10 years of audited financial records. They have 1 hour to do so." Then after 1 hour they filed the decert & walked. That was the NFLPA's bargaining position. Care to comment? Why won't the owners just get all of their numbers and put them in a binder and present them to the union? It seems that the numbers would speak for themselves. If a royalty owner wanted to question the check I sent them for their royalty payment, I have to show them my oil and gas sales and would happily do so because there is nothing to hide. Why aren't the owners opening their books and why can't they get their numbers together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Itals Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 And btw: why in the hell is Von Millers name attatched to anything? Going after the rookie pay scale too? good luck with that I assume Millers presense in the anti-trust suit would be to go after the rookie draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Back at ya bro. Ahhhh...well I've known Brian a very long time. Like somebody mentioned, an extreme example to prove a point. I'm in favor for the owners so I don't agree and it has nothing to do with the message itself. Nothing else going on here,,moving on. I assume Millers presense in the anti-trust suit would be to go after the rookie draft. So now the rookie draft is in doubt I presume. Bad move IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Why won't the owners just get all of their numbers and put them in a binder and present them to the union? It seems that the numbers would speak for themselves. If a royalty owner wanted to question the check I sent them for their royalty payment, I have to show them my oil and gas sales and would happily do so because there is nothing to hide. Why aren't the owners opening their books and why can't they get their numbers together? Why should they? If they've come down off there initial demands by 66% and negotiating in good faith while the NFLPA hadn't moved an inch, which is obviously not negotiating at all. Maybe if Smith was a power hungry litigator hell bent on taking this to the courts it wouldn't have happened. How we miss Gene Upshaw right now. And a Royalty owner is an owner. They have the right to do so. Players are not owners. Edited March 12, 2011 by piratesownninjas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Ahhhh...well I've known Brian a very long time. Like somebody mentioned, an extreme example to prove a point. I'm in favor for the owners so I don't agree and it has nothing to do with the message itself. Nothing else going on here,,moving on. Well my "Back at ya bro" was to Brentastic I believe regarding his - "if you're for the owners, you can suck it" comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Well my "Back at ya bro" was to Brentastic I believe regarding his - "if you're for the owners, you can suck it" comment. Ahhhh... Agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 In regards to Von Miller being named in the lawsuit. I'm assuming here that this lawsuit wasn't drawn up at the 11th hour. Talk about negotiating in bad faith. This screams that louder than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 In regards to Von Miller being named in the lawsuit. I'm assuming here that this lawsuit wasn't drawn up at the 11th hour. Talk about negotiating in bad faith. This screams that louder than anything. He was named as one of the 9 a week or so ago. I wonder how the NFLPA can sell fans on trying to get the draft to not exists... Those players sure are with the fans. And via twitter, I've already got an angry response from Marcus McNeil. Class act he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Why won't the owners just get all of their numbers and put them in a binder and present them to the union? It seems that the numbers would speak for themselves. The owners did exactly that. They provided the league revenues. The union wanted each team's individual books. Then the owners offered 5 years worth of audited financials from each team. The union said 10 years or we are walking - and then waked 15 minutes later. Your argument holds no merit. The union clearly wanted to settle this under the wings of their pet judge and did not negotiate in good faith by any standard. I could live without a year of NFL football if it means that the players get to reap the consequences of their actions. That would be worth every missed snap and then some. 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 Ya BP. I normally appreciate your take, even if I disagree with it (which I usually do), but that one......not so much. Kinda surprising from you actually. You can do better. Yeah . . I shouldnt have gone fishing with dynamite for bronco billy . . . . agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The owners did exactly that. They provided the league revenues. The union wanted each team's individual books. Then the owners offered 5 years worth of audited financials from each team. The union said 10 years or we are walking - and then waked 15 minutes later. Your argument holds no merit. The union clearly wanted to settle this under the wings of their pet judge and did not negotiate in good faith by any standard. I could live without a year of NFL football if it means that the players get to reap the consequences of their actions. That would be worth every missed snap and then some. Unions just keep making one dumb mistake after another. I'm not sure if this is the time for ANY unions to be playing games. Unions aren't fairing very well in the court of public opinion as of late. This isn't going to help their cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yeah . . I shouldnt have gone fishing with dynamite for bronco billy . . . . agreed. Fishing implies that you understand the situation and are intentionally being contrary. You don't and you aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Speaking of unions, I'm earning 5 more days on this infomercial towards the 30 required.....YAY ME!! Can I get a woop wopp!!?? Edited March 12, 2011 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Agreed. I think he just used an extreme example to make a point. All these analogies to employers and employees miss the underlying truth - these groups are business partners. This has nothing to do with an employee you hire and fire at your discretion, as in most businesses. Yes, they are salaried but the players share multiple revenue streams with the owners. This is not a 50/50 split (owners have more risks), but it's definitely a partnership. If a business partner told you they needed to renegotiate some mutually agreed-upon contract because of x, y, or z, would you really just take them at their word? Why? If you're interested in breaking a union, ok, fine. If you think owners or players, depending on your viewpoint, are self-absorbed a-holes, fine. I don't see how any rational business person, though, would give up money on the table because another party to the discussions said "trust us." What smell test does that pass? The truth in all this media smoke-screen nonsense is that we have no idea, yet, who is truly being unreasonable. I agree entirely. If the owners are pleading poverty, then WHY NOT SHARE THE INFO. because they are full of chit, that s why. It doesnt matter whether they have to or if there is precedent. It would be the SMART thing to do to keep the gravy train rolling. The owners are NOT losing money. They just want more money. The players are happy with the status quo. Of course, if they CANT prove a thing, then they wouldnt want to provide that info. That would just expose them for wanting more money and being greedy. Solution? Pretend like you are meeting them halfway by all of a sudden offering terms (but STILL not being forthright on the financials . .) so that you get to paint yourself in a better light while still trying to get a bigger piece of the enormous revenue pie. Considering that the NFL is a monopoly, all the comparisons to "well at MY job . . " are asinine. This is a wholly independent model that constantly appreciates in value, makes increasing amounts of money, and controlls who gets to be part of the "club" and who doesnt. Treat it like the unique situation it is . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Fishing implies that you understand the situation and are intentionally being contrary. You don't and you aren't. Your posts clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge in general about the subject with your silly comparisions to "your jobs" in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I agree entirely. Considering that the NFL is a monopoly, all the comparisons to "well at MY job . . " are asinine. This is a wholly independent model that constantly appreciates in value, makes increasing amounts of money, and controlls who gets to be part of the "club" and who doesnt. Treat it like the unique situation it is . . . I agree entirely. I realize that the everyman is trying to make sense of the NFL labor disagreement in terms of their own world, but those personal job comparisons are never truly comparable, and just serve to reveal a lack of comprehension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HutOne Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 It seems to me that the owners are not really presenting their case properly. When I sell an oil and gas prospect, I try to wow them with numbers and every fact that proves the propect economical for drilling. The owners are not bringing the facts to the table. How do they expect the Union to follow along if they don't provide all the facts? I am not saying who is right or wrong, but you have to bring your "wow" presentation to the selling table. The owners seem, IMO, to be half a$$ing their presentation. If I did that, noone would take my propects seriously. The owners should have come to the table with all the numbers for all to see. That is why this has failed. It is like the owners are not together in their presentation, or do not think they have to "sell" their negotiation. I think it is up to the owners to "sell" their idea to the Union, not the other way around. I disagree. I saw an interview where they spelled out everything they offered the players. What I didn't hear yet is what the players wanted in a counter offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Unions just keep making one dumb mistake after another. I'm not sure if this is the time for ANY unions to be playing games. Unions aren't fairing very well in the court of public opinion as of late. This isn't going to help their cause. On the way to the hockey game last night I was listening to the NFL Channel on Sirius and they said that in the situation we're about to see there are past rulings to draw upon for his answers. The interesting part is that Doty has long proven to be partial to the players union. The previous rullings tend to side with the owners. If Doty does what a judge is supposed to do he's probably going to deal a blow to the players union. If that happens, the PA will be begging for the offer they left on the table in New York on Friday. And they won't get it. Cunning Runt will be smiling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Then the owners offered 5 years worth of audited financials from each team. The union said 10 years or we are walking - and then waked 15 minutes later. Just FYI, I'm pretty sure the union would strongly dispute this. If that's not the case, then it's a pretty big PR feather in the league's hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Just FYI, I'm pretty sure the union would strongly dispute this. If that's not the case, then it's a pretty big PR feather in the league's hat. They would be correct to dispute it. I believe it was 5 years worth of audited P&L statements, not the detailed financials the players wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 On the way to the hockey game last night I was listening to the NFL Channel on Sirius and they said that in the situation we're about to see there are past rulings to draw upon for his answers. The interesting part is that Doty has long proven to be partial to the players union. The previous rullings tend to side with the owners. If Doty does what a judge is supposed to do he's probably going to deal a blow to the players union. If that happens, the PA will be begging for the offer they left on the table in New York on Friday. And they won't get it. Cunning Runt will be smiling. I sure would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Citing both players and owners sources, the Washington Post reports that the 2011 NFL season would likely be played with no salary cap if the players succeed in ending the owners' lockout. The system would reportedly be similar to how the 2010 season was played, with all players who were tendered as restricted free agents, and franchise and transition tagged continuing on their one-year contracts. Thus, all those RFA tenders that were assigned in late February would be upheld. The NFL would reportedly stay uncapped because the system in place "might have a better chance of withstanding an antitrust challenge by the players." The union already agreed to these rules once. The players expect a court ruling on the injunction of the lockout "within three to four weeks". Source - Washington Post 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.