|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I'm not happy they could not come to an agreement, but I can't say I'm not happy that the gravy train might be going off a cliff.
It's not going to happen, but I really don't care if we see 1700 new players. The quality of the game will suffer a little at first,....just like it does in college football EVERY year as you turn over 25% ( ?? -- roughly) of your roster to graduation.
Well, I might be lying a wee bit there,....I'll feel bad for a few of the Browns we know to be solid, hard working, blue collar types, .... your Thomas, Cribbs and Dawson guys,...
So that might lead one to ask,....Why are the rank and file members of this "Union" not flying their F-18's into DeMaurice Smith's living room ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
..Why are the rank and file members of this "Union" not flying their F-18's into DeMaurice Smith's living room ?
Because just like here where I live, the rank and file, in my case steelworkers, put all there trust into guys like Smith who are generally out only for themselves. I wonder what kind of percentage Smith gets if they win a big suit containing millions of dollars?
The players are being used, just as the steelworkers were. The local workers here were talked into agreements from an Indian company to purchase their mill. After the local president talked them into it, he signed on to be a vice president of the company while still being the union president. More than 80% of the mill is now idle, and the union president who also works for the company as a VP just built a huge house with the money he made. Meanwhile, most of the people who worked there are unemployed, and many are facing dire times.
Smith is trying to make a name for himself as a tough negotiator, probably promising the players the moon. Many of these players have no idea what is at stake. They are young guys who have had it made for years. If they think it is hard working for 3/4 of a million a year, wait until there is no paycheck, and the fans start to turn on them.
The ploy of having the owners show their books is just that a ploy. They want big money figures to put in the press so that uninformed people start to look down upon the owners as greedy. This is class warfare at it's best. Try to turn the owners into villians, while lining your pockets with their money.
It is just like when politicians call corporations evil, when taking these same corporations money for their campaigns. Without the owners, there would be no NFL, plain and simple. Smith is a lowlife lawyer, and is ruining the top game in the country. Those who don't think the players will get tons of backlash for this are fooling theirselves. They chose this arse, and he is killing their cashcow for his own personal gain.
I'm personally glad my son plays HS football, and that there are tons of college games on every week. I will not miss the NFL at all. It has slowly went from a great team sport, to a entertainment show almost equal to professional wrestling. I hope the loss of money and fame many of these spoiled players experience, helps them realize that when you screw the fans, you pay dearly.
I can't wait until the endorsement money starts being effected. That will open there eyes to who really pays the bills.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
What you have to remember is that The Owners and the NFL will not open the books...Granted it is squabling over a boat load of money, but the easy solution is to open the books..Of Course they don't want the players to see the serious Ching they are missing out on..
People like you are exactly why they want the books open. They want to use people like you who have no idea to turn on the owners because you see big money numbers. It will be used out of context to demonize the owners.
As someone said above, maybe the players should open their books. While they are complaining about needing more, maybe we could see exactly what they spend their money on.
That is just as stupid as the owners opening their books. The players have no right to see their personal statements. The players are employees, and until folks like you understand that, guys like Smith will continue to dupe you.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
WTH is this???
Source: Free agency could start at midnight
Posted by Mike Florio on March 11, 2011, 6:31 PM EST
As the league scrambles to process the meaning of the union’s decision to decertify, a high-level source with one team tells PFT that the league is preparing for the possibility that free agency could begin soon.
As in at midnight.
Per the source, the league is bracing for the possibility of a ruling from Judge David Doty that would force the doors to remain open, compelling the league to allow player movement and trades as soon as 12:01 a.m. Saturday.
Thus, by tomorrow at this time, Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha could (key word . . . “could”) have a new team.
Though no one knows for sure whether that will happen, there’s a fear/belief that it could, and teams are preparing for the possibility.
Holy crap, this could get very interesting.
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
it was bad speculation at its worst. The lockout has happened so no buisness will be conducted with players.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
Guys like Me Huh? Wow...When the owners and the league cut TV Deals on behalf of the Players and that money is deemed to be part of the Players, they want to see if it was bargained in Good faith..I won't go out on a tangent such as yourself and say you you...But I see it the other way as I'm not the one duped here...I don't think you understand what you are talking about and I will leave it at that. Hey If your Company is Highly Succesful and they want you to Roll back to your wage 4 years ago...Have at it..I personally think it is a joke and a greedy tactic by the League and it's owners. What a slap in the face..I will say if the Owners came out and said hey we want to drop The price of the game day experience for a family of 4 to this much, which includes dropping ticket prices, parking, food and beer and merchandise and this is how much it will take..let's meet half way but they won't. They are not thinking about you or even lowering the cost they are thinking about themselves and you jump on their boat. These owners and this league are making BILLIONS...yet you are still paying Buku bucks for a game day experience. They have an exclusive network that you pay for, these guys have duped you by crying poor mouth and the players want their cut..Good for them and they should. NFLPA Lawyer on the real Proposal
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
They make billions in revenue. Then they have to pay players salaries (as well as front office salaries, medical bills and rehab, game day operation costs, funding for supplies, travel, etc.). I'm not on either side of this fight of players versus owners anymore, but please try not to make it a one sided deal.
Both sides have equal demands and neither is willing to concede on the major ones. You saying that the owners are making billions isn't accounting for any of their costs, taxes, and other variables. It also doesn't account for the fact that you are collectivizing them. I bet a few of the owners are making amounts that you or I would be sick to see (Washington, Dallas, maybe New England...) but there are also a few teams that are probably contemplating moving the team to Los Angeles because they have almost no money (Jacksonville, Buffalo maybe?).
The point isn't about how much they are making, it is about they are the ones who have the most amount invested and they also have the most risk invested. If due to the league going easier on hitting (think concussions), and a potential lockout, as well as other economic factors ... if the league sees a sudden devaluation and all of the clubs and owners lose their value by half, you wouldn't see a single player offer to give back them money. They are only in this (just like the owners) for a profit. Don't believe me? How many players stay on with a team that is average or mediocre at low level dollars? It's a business and neither side is wrong for acting that way, but both sides do it.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,827
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,827 |
Quote:
These owners and this league are making BILLIONS..
I'm not aware of any team making billions. I'm not aware that the league makes billions. We're talking profit here, okay?
If you want to use that in your scenario, first of all, prove it. Secondly, take the nflpa and show us their books. Take just 53 players per team - 32 teams, add up the payroll. Then tell us how much money that comes out to. Technically speaking, that is what the nflpa "makes", right?
More importantly - none of that matters.
What you seem to forget is the players are free to find other jobs. Every single one of them is free to go do something else. Just because they have the ability to play football doesn't mean they are entitled to play football. It's not a hard concept to grasp really.
Again, using your example of "what if your boss wanted to cut payroll to what it was 4 years ago....." You would have the choice of accepting it, OR finding a different boss.
Here's where it gets interesting: See, if your boss loses all the competent employees and consequently can't make the same product, he goes out of business. Not only does he lose the business income, he loses the value of the business. He's screwed.
I sure can't go tell my boss he makes too much and demand i get a raise.
The players can't either. Fairly simple. The UAW can't do that - no one can.
Yes, the anti trust exemption comes into play as well - but that's a matter for the legal beagles to figure out - not you or I.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,827
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,827 |
I agree - and tried to post basically the same thought - but you said it better than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
it was bad speculation at its worst. The lockout has happened so no buisness will be conducted with players.
It's getting nuts out there Mour,,, So many different stories coming out. The one I posted says that a lockout will occur, then the one that someone else posted saying FA will start tonight..
I honestly don't know who to believe.
Right now, I don't think we can say anything is for sure.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
League claims decertification came too early to avoid “sham” defense
Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011, 1:20 PM EST
GreggLevyAP
The fact that the NFL has locked out a supposedly non-union work force implies that the league believes the union has not properly and effectively decertified.
And the NFL has now expressly said so.
“The union only pretended to decertify in 1990,” NFL outside counsel Gregg Levy said in a statement provided to PFT. “As history has confirmed, that purported decertification was a sham. In an effort to protect its ability to repeat the fraud a second time, the union tried in the White settlement to limit the NFL’s ability to challenge in an antitrust court any future attempt by the union to pull off a similar sham. But that limitation could have applied only if the purported decertification occurred after expiration of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The union was in such a rush to get to court that it did not wait until SSA expiration. The league is therefore free to show that this ‘decertification’ is also a sham.”
Levy is referring to Article LVII, Section 3(b) of the CBA, which states as follows: “The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority
of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives,
agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is Article LVII, Mutual Reservation of Rights: Labor Exemption or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.” (Emphasis added.)
The problem for the players is that Article LVII, Section 3(a) of the CBA required them to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit if they failed to file it before the expiration of the labor deal. So they’ve opted, apparently, to file the lawsuit in accordance with the terms of the CBA and hope that they can cobble together an argument that will allow the waiver of the “sham” defense to still apply.
The league’s position is pretty simple. By failing to wait until the CBA expired to decertify, the plain terms of the agreement preserves the league’s ability to argue that the process of shutting down the union is a sham.
And it is a sham. Everyone knows it’s a sham. But if the league can’t argue in court that it’s a sham, it doesn’t matter. If the league can argue that it’s a sham, then the league will be in good position to avoid an injunction and maintain a lockout.
Of course, that’s bad news for the fans, because it means that a lockout will continue until a deal is reached at the bargaining table. With the players taking personally the treatment they’ve experienced of late, the players may be willing to cut off theirs noses to spite their faces, which means that the offseason could indeed be compromised if not completely forfeited.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Man, it's seeming more and more likely that DeMaurice Smith and the lawyers for the NFLPA have led the players down a path that will cost them dearly for years to come.
There is a poll in the poll threads asking who you side with.. Owners or Players.
I've tried to remain open minded up to now, but I'm thinking that the owners are trying to preserve the financial integrity of the game for the long haul and the players seem only interested in what they can put in thier pockets...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
j/c
As I've stated before, I support the union (and unions in general) in this matter.
However, assuming that everything the owners have said is true, that they made these great concessions, I kind of start to think that the union feels spoiled by Judge Doty. That, since he's ruled in the union's favor a few times, they can go before him and win on every single argument they make. So, why should they accept the owners' proposals? We'll just go to the Judge and he'll make the owners do everything the union wants.
Well, that's just not good thinking. Not only is it shady, but there's also the very real chance that Doty rules against the union, and then you've lost a lot of leverage.
I think using the threat of Doty was a good bargaining point. But, now that it's actually gone before him, the union has to be biting its nails.
Now, it seems that a lot of people just don't like unions (or this union), so no matter what they do, it's going to be wrong and bad, just like there are some (like me) who just don't trust the owners.
But, in fairness, just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're wrong.
Just because you hate unions doesn't mean the union is wrong here.
And, just because I don't really like the owners here doesn't mean they're wrong, either. Frankly, it at least seems that the owners were pretty willing to give up a lot of things in order to get a deal done, but the union was just too full of itself. And that's no good for anyone. Because, no matter who "wins" in the end, there's going to be bad blood simmering beneath the surface.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,827
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,827 |
j/c Some have mentioned that the owners don't care about his year since they get the t.v. revenue regardless of whether games are played or no. You know - the $4 billion dollars. Was anyone aware that, apparently, if there aren't games, the league gets the $4 billion, but has to repay it? "Though the $4 billion was in essence a loan that the league would have to repay over the term of the contract," http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...in&hpt=SbinRead more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...l#ixzz1GPwCS89C
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc. Now would be a good time for the league to say. No more unions since it's being decertified, use it to your advantage and see how they like that.  I guarantee they can find 1700 guys willing to play the game.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730 |
And it wasn't even assigned to Doty, who hasn't just ruled for the union a few times. Try every time....not that the rulings were incorrect.
No doubt we don't have all the information, but I doubt the owners are telling stories about what was put on the table, though I agree there are probably things the union wanted that weren't put on the table.
I myself find it hard to believe the courts won't side with the owners on this one. This decertification is simply a ploy and leads one to believe any good will bargaining was pretty one sided.
The union's position was to decertify from day one. They never entered these talks with any intent to take any cuts at all.
My mood right now is I hope the owners just scratch the season. Let's see how long it takes some of these bums to feel the pinch.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730 |
Quote:
j/c
Some have mentioned that the owners don't care about his year since they get the t.v. revenue regardless of whether games are played or no. You know - the $4 billion dollars.
Was anyone aware that, apparently, if there aren't games, the league gets the $4 billion, but has to repay it?
"Though the $4 billion was in essence a loan that the league would have to repay over the term of the contract,"
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...in&hpt=Sbin
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...l#ixzz1GPwCS89C
Doty just ruled against the owners last week. They don't get the money. It will be placed in a trust.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
jc.
Now would be a good time for the league to say. No more unions since it's being decertified, use it to your advantage and see how they like that.
I guarantee they can find 1700 guys willing to play the game.
I'm banking on it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
It's Wisconsin playing out in professional football realm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
I'm hoping that they just start to negotiate directly with the players and any players that don't want to negotiate for their job and compensation could just sit by and lose their ability to bargain for a job at all with the NFL. Let them bargain for a job in the CFL or one of the arena leagues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
I'm hoping that they just start to negotiate directly with the players and any players that don't want to negotiate for their job and compensation could just sit by and lose their ability to bargain for a job at all with the NFL. Let them bargain for a job in the CFL or one of the arena leagues.
which begs the question, those players under contract with a team,, let's say Colt McCoy as an example... Because of the CBA expireing, is his contract still valid?
No lawyer here,, just asking cause I really don't know. I suspect it's enforceable but I don't know.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
This is posted on the Browns Main site. Some stuff we've read already... Quote:
NFL Transcripts
Posted 7 hours ago
aaTranscripts of comments from Commissioner Roger Goodell, Jeff Pash, Jerry Richardson and John Mara.
Commissioner Roger Goodell, Jeff Pash, Jerry Richardson, John Mara
Washington, DC -- 3/11/11
Roger Goodell: We had 17 days of mediation here. We certainly want to thank George Cohen, Scott Beckenbaugh and the entire staff here. We worked hard. We didn’t reach an agreement obviously. As you know, the union walked away from the mediation process today to decertify. We do believe that mediation is the fairest and fastest way to reach an agreement that works for the players and for the clubs. And we believe that ultimately this is going to be negotiated at the negotiating table. They’ve decided to pursue another strategy and that is their choice. But we will be prepared to negotiate an agreement and get something done that is fair to the players and fair to the clubs.
Jerry Richardson: This is a time for our fans not to be discouraged. We’ve worked very hard. I view it as a bump in the road. In due course we will have an agreement. As the Commissioner alluded to, we’ll have to negotiate an agreement. I would also like to add there has been no anger and friction between the players and the teams and has been actually a real learning experience for all of us, and in due course we will have an agreement.
John Mara: This obviously is a very disappointing day for all of us. I’ve been here for the better part of two weeks now, and essentially during that two-week period the union’ s position on the core economic issues has not changed one iota. Their position has quite literally been ‘take it or leave it’ and in effect they have been at the same position since last September. We made an offer to them today to basically split the difference between the two sides. We made that approximately at 12:00 pm and at 4:00 pm they came back and said it was insufficient and they have apparently decided to decertify. One thing that became painfully apparent to me during this period was that their objective was to go the litigation route. I believe they think it gives them the best leverage. I never really got the feeling in the past weeks that they were serious about negotiating. And it’s unfortunate because that’s not what collective bargaining is all about. I think eventually we’ll be back at the table, but unfortunately now we will have to go through this process where we are in court.
Jeff Pash: As you know we’ve been here for the better part of three weeks, fully engaged and fully committed to this process. I said yesterday that an agreement could be reached if there was a shared commitment on both sides. I was disappointed and all of us were disappointed that at the very time we were face-to-face with the union and its executive committee, they had already made the decision to decertify their union. We were meeting with them after 4:00 pm this afternoon to talk about the offer that we tendered them. And an hour later, we got letters that as of 4:00 PM they had given up their status as a collective bargaining representative.
So I think we know where the commitment was. It was a commitment to litigate as we said all along. And that’s unfortunate because all it means is the eventual resolution of this business dispute is going to be delayed. We will have an agreement and we will have a system that is good for fans, good for players and allows this game to grow.
I want to say before I go any further that George Cohen and Scott Beckenbaugh, the director and deputy director here at FMCS have our most profound gratitude. They’ve put in an extraordinary amount of time and effort, they have brought a discipline and a strength to the process, they have pushed both sides to examine and re-examine their positions.
Out of that came today a comprehensive, new revised proposal to the Players Association that incorporated and moved in fact further on all the areas we had discussed all week and where progress had been made.
We incorporated new economic terms to try to bridge the gap. You’ve heard a lot of talk about an $800M gap. Nowhere close. Not close to factual.
We offered today to split the difference and meet the union in the midpoint, with a player compensation number that would have been equivalent to player compensation in 2009 and above player compensation in 2010, and we offered grow it from there over four years by $20 million a club, to the point where in 2014 the player compensation number was the union’s number. It was the number the union proposed to us and we accepted it. That wasn’t good enough.
We offered to guarantee for the first time in the history of the league, more than one year of injury on player contracts. Apparently not good enough.
We moved off of our wage scale, and we offered to do a rookie compensation system within the context of a hard rookie cap as the union had proposed which would preserve individual negotiations and maintain the role of agents in the process. Evidently not good enough.
We offered, in fact we agreed to the union’s request for a cash team minimum for the first time in league history. We agreed to it at their number and their structure. Evidently not good enough.
We told the union that for 2011 and 2012, we would play within the existing 16-game regular season format, and we committed to them, notwithstanding the rights we have in the current agreement, we would not change to 18 games without their consent. Evidently not good enough.
At the same time, we agreed to implement wide ranging health and safety changes, reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing the practice time in the preseason, reducing the practice time and contract drills during the regular season and expanding the number of days off for players. Evidently not good enough.
We offered to increase the benefits in a wide range for both current and retired players. Under the proposal we had tendered, retired players who left the league before 1993, would experience an increase in their retirement benefit of close to 60 percent and the union, which says it represents former players, walked away from that today.
We’re discouraged, we’re frustrated, we’re disappointed, but we are not giving up. We know this will be resolved in the negotiation process and we will be prepared to come back here any time the union is ready to come back here.
And we look forward to getting back to the collective bargaining table with the assistance of the director and Scott Beckenbaugh and getting the kind of agreement that we need to have this game go forward.
Will you lock the players out tonight?
Decision has not been made.
How do you plan to get back to the negotiating table when you are so far apart?
On many things, I don’t think we are that far apart. That’s my point. We accepted the union’s position on a wide range of issues in an effort to bridge the gaps, in an effort to get to an agreement. Evidently that was not good enough for whatever reason.
Did they bargain in bad faith?
That’s for someone else to decide.
What do you say to the fans?
I can say to the fans as I’ve said before, the absence of an agreement is a shared failure and I think they should be disappointed, I think they should be unhappy and I understand that. I will only say that we will not waiver for one moment, for one day, in trying to get an agreement that works for fans, that works for players and that works for clubs. That’s what we want. It doesn’t do us any good to shut down our business. That was never our goal. It’s not our purpose today. No one is happy with where we are right now. We will continue our efforts. This is a part of the process, but it is not the end of the process. I think that’s the most important thing to remember.
Will you stay in touch with the union?
I certainly hope so. I would expect so, yes.
What is the status of the NLRB charge?
I don’t know.
How can you stay in touch if they’ve decertified?
I have my views on whether the decertification such as it is valid or meaningful. Someone else will make that judgment--it’s not for me to decide. But we’ve obviously brought a proceeding at the National Labor Relations Board to address that issue. There will come a point no matter how the litigation that union has evidently filed, whatever course it takes, when we will have to get back together to resolve these issues. Because the only way we can have an orderly process for having this game operate is through consensual negotiations, through agreements, and so we’ll have to make them. Eventually, I don’t know how long, I hope not very long, we’ll sit down and get to work on that.
When will you make a decision on the lockout?
We’ll talk to the CEC again and get a sense of what they think is the appropriate course and make an announcement at the appropriate time.
Will your offers be less generous as you continue to lose money?
We’ve said that as this goes on, there will be losses and those losses will obviously complicate, they won’t make it easier to get an agreement, they’ll complicate it – so that’s certainly a factor that we’ll have to account for as we go forward. That’s one more reason why the sooner we get back to bargaining, and the sooner we reach an agreement, the better.
Will you release any more financial documents?
There is no point to releasing them to people who don’t want to negotiate with you. We did offer to release five years of individual club-by-club financial documents to a mutually acceptable third party to review, analyze and report on those documents. We also offered to give the union aggregate profit data for the 32 clubs as a whole so they could see how the profitability has changed over the years. We offered substantial financial disclosures and the union chose not to take it.
Is the five years of audited financials a new offer?
It was something we had offered them some time ago. It was not something we just offered today.
When De Smith said we want 10 years of audited financials from each club, what was the reaction?
We were upstairs discussing the various points that they had made. Unbeknownst to us at the time they made those points they had already claimed to renounce their bargaining status, so I don’t know precisely why we were meeting with them. We were upstairs discussing it, we were talking to members of our ownership and within the committee and then we saw on one of the television stations that they had announced they had decertified and filed a lawsuit, etc. So it sort of muted the discussion.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Well, it seems most everyone is pretty much appalled with the players now that information is being published web-wide. As a result many have sided with the owners.
I'm only going to say this: The only information we are getting right now is from the NFL. That's one side of the equation.
Between the NFL and the 32 teams there are 33 websites from which to get information on how the negotiations processed up until the union decertified. Listen to how all the information portrays the NFL as the total good guys who were willing to do just about anything to get a fair agreement settled while the union was totally uncooperative.
What else do we expect to hear from that one side?
On the other hand, there are not 33 websites representing the players side of the story. Since there is no union now, even the NFLPA website is shut down. So all we are getting is one side of this whole issue and that one side is sure painting themselves as the innocents in this whole issue while citing the players/union as the bad guys.
More shall be revealed....
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Well, it seems most everyone is pretty much appalled with the players now that information is being published web-wide. As a result many have sided with the owners.
I'm only going to say this: The only information we are getting right now is from the NFL. That's one side of the equation.
Between the NFL and the 32 teams there are 33 websites from which to get information on how the negotiations processed up until the union decertified. Listen to how all the information portrays the NFL as the total good guys who were willing to do just about anything to get a fair agreement settled while the union was totally uncooperative.
What else do we expect to hear from that one side?
On the other hand, there are not 33 websites representing the players side of the story. Since there is no union now, even the NFLPA website is shut down. So all we are getting is one side of this whole issue and that one side is sure painting themselves as the innocents in this whole issue while citing the players/union as the bad guys.
More shall be revealed....
Well, while I haven't read much from the Union side of things, I've watched two interviews, one with De Smith and the other with one of thier lawyers.. I gotta tell you man,, They didn't convince me they were in the right here. They really did sound like a bunch of Greedy slobs.
The thing I'm sensing here is that the owners were/are trying to plan years ahead. Making sure that the league remains financially viable. Whereas, I get the sense that the ONLY thing the players want is all the cash they can get. Hell with the future of the league.
Not saying that's the way it is, just saying that's the way it appears.
Like I said, I've tried to remain open minded,, But damn, the players are making it hard to believe anything they say..
De Smith isn't believable. he comes across as a guy that really didn't want to negotiate,,
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
Quote:
I guarantee they can find 1700 guys willing to play the game.
Be careful what you wish for. I personally would rather not pay $100+ for a day at the stadium to watch guys that make David Veikune look like Ray Lewis in his prime.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
I guarantee they can find 1700 guys willing to play the game.
Be careful what you wish for. I personally would rather not pay $100+ for a day at the stadium to watch guys that make David Veikune look like Ray Lewis in his prime.
How else are we ganna win a Super Bowl? 
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
32 expansion teams! All right, we've got a shot at the big game!
Personally I'm disgusted with both sides.
They've had an awfully long time to work all of this out, instead all we get is posturing from both sides with desertification votes in the middle of last season and the owners all along appear to want to lock out the players to squeeze them for a better deal than they agreed to before.
If the NFL is here this fall, I'll watch, if not, I'll find other things to do.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
I'm not 100% certain there won't be a lock out Shep,. Read below
Yep...the lockout occurred, and some time this coming week there will be a ruling saying that they can't lock them out with the pending litigation in regard to the anti-trust suits that came after decertification.
We've been through this before....in 1989. The only difference then was that the league wanted a salary cap and the players wanted Free Agency. Now the players want a bigger piece of the pie in both yearly revenue as well as retirement benefits and the owners want 18 games and the rookie wage scale in place.
There is lots of misinformation floating around in this thread.......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not 100% certain there won't be a lock out Shep,. Read below
Yep...the lockout occurred, and some time this coming week there will be a ruling saying that they can't lock them out with the pending litigation in regard to the anti-trust suits that came after decertification.
We've been through this before....in 1989. The only difference then was that the league wanted a salary cap and the players wanted Free Agency. Now the players want a bigger piece of the pie in both yearly revenue as well as retirement benefits and the owners want 18 games and the rookie wage scale in place.
There is lots of misinformation floating around in this thread.......
There really is a lot of misinfo floating around,, But the thing is, it's not so much us, it's the news reports. One says one thing, the other disputes it.. and so on and so on.
I didn't expect a settlement by last friday,, but I was hoping for another extension.
I really think the Union jumped the shark on this..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Not really.......they extended the negotiations and then decertified. They had to decertify ASAP or wait 6 months to do so. Since they did it prior to the expiration of the deadline, then they can decertify and proceed to litigation to get to a quicker outcome. If they hadn't done so, then we would not see the 2011 season start on time for sure. Now, it still may be salvageable.......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
The anti-trust suits have already been filed, as soon as they decertified. So there will be no lockout.
Quote:
Yep...the lockout occurred, and some time this coming week there will be a ruling saying that they can't lock them out with the pending litigation in regard to the anti-trust suits that came after decertification..
More (miss) information shep.
Why have litigation if you already 'assume' that they will rule in favor of the players. More miss information.
Other then copy and pasting articles all you have offered is speculation on this issue yet you contradict what you said earlier and then say it as if it was indeed fact. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
If they hadn't done so, then we would not see the 2011 season start on time for sure. Now, it still may be salvageable.......
I wouldn't go as far as to believe this. By going the litigation route, you can gaurantee that this will be dragged out for months. Just setting a court date will take time. Then after months of waiting for that, both sides can postpone it many times. It could be mid summer before this ever goes before a judge. Then once it does, the proceedings could take weeks.
You seem to be siding with the union, which is alright, but don't try to make it sound as if the owners will be at fault for no football next year.
The facts were laid out, be it by a NFL spokesperson, but I have failed to see Smith or anybody else from the union dispute the facts of the deal offered.
Bottom line is Smith wants the books open so he can start a media circus against the owners. I see no season at all.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Now the players want a bigger piece of the pie in both yearly revenue as well as retirement benefits and the owners want 18 games and the rookie wage scale in place.
Hasn't the salary cap been increasing every year. Doesn't that equate to more money for the players every year? Add in a rookie wage scale and to me that equates to more money to split between the veterans on each team than what was available before.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
If they hadn't done so, then we would not see the 2011 season start on time for sure. Now, it still may be salvageable.......
I wouldn't go as far as to believe this. By going the litigation route, you can gaurantee that this will be dragged out for months. Just setting a court date will take time. Then after months of waiting for that, both sides can postpone it many times. It could be mid summer before this ever goes before a judge. Then once it does, the proceedings could take weeks.
You seem to be siding with the union, which is alright, but don't try to make it sound as if the owners will be at fault for no football next year.
The facts were laid out, be it by a NFL spokesperson, but I have failed to see Smith or anybody else from the union dispute the facts of the deal offered.
Bottom line is Smith wants the books open so he can start a media circus against the owners. I see no season at all.
First of all we don't have all of the facts.
[Speculation] secondly an extension to the CBA
was an agreement in principle only and both sides were no longer bound contractually.
This is the reason why the owners are saying that the union decertification was a sham, because contractually the date to file for decertification had past.
[/speculation]
Like the boy who cried wolf the players are counting on the history of their last decertification which brought about FA in the first place, but now they want more.
"Give them an inch and they will try to take a mile"
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
The antitrust laws say the NFL can't lock the players out since the union decertified.
However, the NFL is banking on things being ruled in their favor that the decertification was a sham. They contend this because back in 1989 the union decertified, players sued the NFL, the players won, and then in 1993 the union then re-certified as a union again.
The NFL is going to claim that the decertification back then was a sham just to get their way in stopping a lockout and will then re-certify again just like they did the last time. The NFL claims that makes it a sham.
If the courts rule in favor of the NFL then they can have their lockout.
Caution: Opinion Follows:
The only reason the NFL wants the lockout is because they feel they can outlast the players financially through-out the lockout period and that the players will eventually, sooner rather than later, give up the fight and agree to the NFL's terms.
The reason Judge Doty ruled in the players' favor when he ruled that the NFL negotiated the $4 Billion TV deal, not for the best deal for both themselves and the players who get a cut of the overall income, (which is their responsibility to the players), but rather they did it for their own benefit to have plenty of money to tide them over through-out the lockout period. They accomplished this by taking maybe a little less then they could to have from the TV people in exchange for an agreement to guarantee payment even if there are no games to be televised.
Now why would you want that guaranteed payment even if there are no games to be televised unless you were expecting a lockout which only you could implement? And before you can think it, the players were NOT going to strike. Their stance throughout has been that they want the season to continue without disruption. They were not going to create a work stoppage. They've proved that by decertifing the union in order to ensure the season be played out.
Only the NFL could create a work stoppage. Which they've done.
Since he ruling Jude Doty, it does make it seem very much like the NFL has been planning a lockout for quite sometime, which if you think about it, it means they either didn't expect a deal to get done or did expect that they would not agree to a deal and were planning a lockout. While at the same time that is exactly what the NFL is accusing the Union as doing by decertifing to stop the lockout.
They claim the union planned this all along saying that this is the reason the union did not really want to negotiate, while looking to all the world, and to a judge, that they, themselves, were doing exactly that of which they accuse the union of doing.
The union had no choice. A deal was not getting done and a lockout was going to happen as we all see it has indeed happened. The only chance the players had was to decertify the union and then sue the NFL as individuals in an anti-trust labor suit were there to be a lockout because by antitrust laws the NFL can't lock the players out.
The NFL is the ruling body of a group of competing businesses that is each individual team. That was established in the "American Needle" court case. That is much like the union being the ruling body for each individual player.
For all 32 teams, who are each individual businesses in their own right, to band together as though they were one entity is against the antitrust laws. Otherwise that would allow for price fixing, wage fixing and many other unfair labor practices. In order for the anti-trust laws to apply to the NFL and the players the union had to give up their power to bargin for the players rights.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Here is the link to the Brady vs. NFL anti-trust lawsuit brought on by Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Vincent Jackson, Ben Leber, Logan Mankins, Peyton Manning, Von Miller, Brian Robinson, Osi Umenyiora, and Mike Vrabel individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. PDF file This is a 51 page PDF document. With Peen's help in directing me to the "juice of the matter", I've typed what they are asking. Everything before it is common legal mumbo jumbo, the juice starts on page 48: PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment with respet to their Compliant as follows:
1. Declairing that the "lockout" violates Section 1 of teh Sherman Act, and enjoining said "lockout";
2. Declaring the NFL Defendants imposing the anticompetitive Draft with an "Entering Player Pool" violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining said restriction;
3. Declairing that the NFL Defendants imposition of other anticompetitive restrictions, including the Salary Cap, "Franchise Player" designation, "Transition Player" designation, and/or other player restrictions, violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining said restrictions;
4. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to deprive the players of the ability to work as professional football players or negotiate the terms of that employment in a competitive market.
5. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to withhold contractually-owned amounts to players currently under contract for the 2011 NFL season and beyond.
6. Awarding Plaintiffs and class members treble the amount of damages they sustained as a result of the violations of the antitrust laws alleged herein.
7. Awarding Plaintiffs and Under-Contract Subclass members the damages they sustained as a result of the NFL Defendants' breaches of contract. or voiding their contracts, at the option of each Under-Contract Subclass member.
8. Awarding Plaintiffs and Free Agent Subclass members the damages they sustained as a result of the NFL Defendants' interference with their entering into prospective contracts.
9. Awarding Plaintiffs and Under-Contract Subclass members the damages they sustained as a result of the NFL Defendants' interference with their contracts, or voiding their contracts, at the option of each Under-Contract Subclass member.
10. Declaring that the NFL Defendants are obligated to pay all contractually-owed amounts to Plaintiffs and Under-Contract Subclass members regardless of whether or not the "lockout" imposed by the NFL Defendants' continues and that if the NFL Defendants fail to pay any such required payments to any player, that player's contract shall, at the player's option, be declared null and void.
11. Declaring that, pursuant to the SSA over which this Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the NFL Defendants have waived any right to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination of the NFLPA's status as the players' collective bargaining representative is a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.
12. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;
13. Granting Plaintiffs and class members such other and further relief as may be appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.
Dated: March 11, 2011
(This is then signed by four attorneys: Barbara P. Berens, Justi Rae Miller, Timothy R. Thornton, James W. Quinn, Bruce S. Meyer, Jeffery L. Kessler, David G. Feher and David L. Greenspan; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,995 |
Trying to get a timeline straight in my head.
1. League offers a new deal seemingly giving in on some key points, Union doesn't seem to have given that new deal any consideration.
League and union negotiation with a mediator ends on Friday the 11th unsuccessfully..
2. Union decertifies at 4pm on Friday the 11th
3. At some point on Friday, Players file a lawsuit asking for, among other things, to stop the Lockout, which as far as I can tell, didn't happen until AFTER the suit was filed.
4. CBA officially expires at Midnight
5, A lockout is announced but I've yet to confirm if its real,.
Do I have that right?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,730 |
Quote:
Well, it seems most everyone is pretty much appalled with the players now that information is being published web-wide. As a result many have sided with the owners.
I'm only going to say this: The only information we are getting right now is from the NFL. That's one side of the equation.
Between the NFL and the 32 teams there are 33 websites from which to get information on how the negotiations processed up until the union decertified. Listen to how all the information portrays the NFL as the total good guys who were willing to do just about anything to get a fair agreement settled while the union was totally uncooperative.
What else do we expect to hear from that one side?
On the other hand, there are not 33 websites representing the players side of the story. Since there is no union now, even the NFLPA website is shut down. So all we are getting is one side of this whole issue and that one side is sure painting themselves as the innocents in this whole issue while citing the players/union as the bad guys.
More shall be revealed....
You keep taking that road, and maybe you are right, but to me it is pretty apparent the players wanted more. No??
The players weren't in talks, but they didn't have to be I suppose. They had a deal they wanted to keep.
Every ounce of information from them is they insisted on seeing books...and really, they knew that wasn't going to happen, so they never engaged is serious talks.
The players are taking this stance in an effort to turn the NFL on it's ear. They want total free agency. No tags, no draft.
They feel they have the power to make this move at this time, and are doing so.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Thanks for the pdf file on the suit. Looks like the players are going for the big bang and if the judge is to rule in their favor then football as I knew it is dead. Quote:
Only the NFL could create a work stoppage. Which they've done.
They were not the ones who walked away from the mediation.
They were not the ones who voted to decertify in September 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
More (miss) information shep.
Why have litigation if you already 'assume' that they will rule in favor of the players. More miss information.
Law must take it's course. What will happen will happen.
Quote:
Other then copy and pasting articles all you have offered is speculation on this issue yet you contradict what you said earlier and then say it as if it was indeed fact.
Dude, for 2+ years I have tried to explain to everyone how we were going to reach this point. Now that we have, people want to jump in emotionally without reaching a full understanding of what is going on and what may or may not as well as what can and cannot happen. Just like your inane post about the players who filed the lawsuit...........
I understand what is happening, and you on the other hand do not.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement: Part Three
|
|
