|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
If the owners want to sweeten the pot a bit, I think it's time they gave the revenue of jersey sales to the players. Now, not as one lump sum to be divided amongst them all but instead give to the individual player the revenue from his own jersey sales.
How well do you think the Pats line would protect Brady if he was capturing all the sales revenue and the line wasn't? Let's face it, who buys an OL jersey? Pitting player against player would be an interesting dynamic in this on-going saga.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26 |
Quote:
Let's face it, who buys an OL jersey
Browns fans? My normal game day jersey is a #73 Joe Thomas authentic  
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
If the owners want to sweeten the pot a bit, I think it's time they gave the revenue of jersey sales to the players. Now, not as one lump sum to be divided amongst them all but instead give to the individual player the revenue from his own jersey sales.
How well do you think the Pats line would protect Brady if he was capturing all the sales revenue and the line wasn't? Let's face it, who buys an OL jersey? Pitting player against player would be an interesting dynamic in this on-going saga.
Merchandise sales is part of league revenue sharing and this helps teams make payroll. The players already get a cut of it.....in salary.
What this boils down to is that the owners signed a bad deal last time. As I have mentioned before, people should read the CBA and see what the players were already getting and how much it is costing the owners. The "sweetening" of the pot can be accomplished with the rookie wage schedule that is desired to be implemented, as this would allow for more money to be shifted to veteran/proven players as opposed to David Klingler, Ryan Leaf, Brady Quinn, Brian Bosworth....etc etc etc. In addition, the 18 game schedule would provide more revenue which would in turn result in more pay for the players.
I feel that once June 3rd rolls around we see some things happening to move this along much swifter.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210 |
But Shep, part of the problem that the players have is the money from the rookie wage scale isn't going to them it's going to the owners.
The Owners want an additional $Billion off the top and the players to take a lesser percentage.
LIbertatem Defendimus!!
2010 Dawgtalkers NCAA Bracket Challenge Champ!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
The veteran minimum salary would be increased.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210 |
I'm not going to call you a liar, but I can't find anything that says that the vet minimum will increase.
LIbertatem Defendimus!!
2010 Dawgtalkers NCAA Bracket Challenge Champ!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 109 Likes: 5
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 109 Likes: 5 |
Quote: The players, outside of the elite ones, stand to lose a lot if there is no football. The owners also stand to lose a lot, but most can survive just fine without football. Some, such as the Rooney's and Wilson's, will likely take a huge hit and need football to be played more so than others but they will be fine. Define "Fine"... Quote:
$325,000 minimum seems fine. Expect the owners will 'earn' their minimum pay somehow, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
What don't you guys get about this? The players were getting a percentage of the take that is perfectly in line with all the other major league sports. The owners want to take $1 billion off the top before the players get their percentage plus they want to cut the percentage. Not one person on this board would agree to a deal like that. Not one. The players do not really expect the draft to disappear. Throwing that into the mix is a negotiating tactic and nothing more. They also know that a rookie salary cap is likely but if they're giving that up they want something in return. Again, that's called negotiating. To say that the owners are looking at the viability of the "game" in the future is really kinda funny considering that they're the ones that started this whole thing by opting out of a deal they signed just a few years ago then locked the players out. Now there is talk of them just dropping the season altogether to get around the stay of the lockout if that happens. Yeah, they're the "guardians" of the game alright....  The players are employees. Not serfs. They have a certain amount of rights. You may not like it but that doesn't change a thing. I do have a question for the guys that are seemingly swingin' in the owner's jocks on these issues......The next time you go to a game make a note of how much time you spend watching the owner. Then explain to me why the players shouldn't get a fair share of the pie.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6 |
I think we will see the 18 game season with another bye week added, possibly 2 more bye weeks added along with a roster increase.
The only thing i worry about is both deciding they have to win this thing instead of finding a place of compromise. I have never had any feeling whatsoever that De Smith has any desire for compromise. Milk her till she bleeds is the attitude he presents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6 |
Collinsworth thinks there will be no football until November Posted by Mike Florio on May 16, 2011, 9:12 AM EDT AlandCrisGetty Getty Images NBC’s Cris Collinsworth dropped a bombshell last week on his Twitter page and at his website, FootballPros.com, predicting that the NFL’s regular season won’t begin until November. The thinking is that the Eighth Circuit will conclude that the lockout should remain in place, that negotiations will get serious after Week One is missed (and the NFL and its players incur the wrath of the fans and the media by not playing on the 10th anniversary of 9/11), a deal is reached within a month, camps open in early October, a single-game preseason is played, and the real thing starts in November. Collinsworth elaborated on his views in a weekend discussion with Peter King of SI.com, including a general observation about the mess that currently exists. “Is this really what we want — judges determining so much about the future of the National Football League?” Collinsworth said. “We’ve got the greatest game in the world here in a time of incredible wealth, and we’re in a position where that very possibly can be changed forever here very soon. And I’m just asking: Why?” The easy answer to the “why?” question is that both sides have opted for leverage over compromise. But that’s really where Collinsworth’s “why?” becomes even more relevant. Why are the players and the owners so intent on getting the best possible deal that they are pushing the sport to the brink of long-term damage? “God, I just wish I could get through to somebody,” Collinsworth added. “You know how when you’re talking to your kids, and you know positively what the right thing to do is, and you also know they’re going to do something else, and there’s nothing you can do about it? That’s how I feel now. And, God, is it painful to watch. “The game’s so good. The players are making money. The owners are making money. The commissioner’s got some good safety initiatives going. The networks are thrilled. The fans are thrilled. The game’s never been better. It’s time to quit sugarcoating this thing and really start thinking about what the NFL really might look like at the end of the process.” He’s referring to the possibility that the players will eventually win the antitrust lawsuit (regardless of whether the lifting of the lockout while the case proceeds is upheld on appeal), that the players won’t make significant concessions from the ensuing position of ultimate leverage, and that the league will eventually say, “Screw it. Let’s have no rules. Let’s be baseball.” Hell, maybe that’s what the hard-line owners secretly want. Maybe Jerry Jones wants to blow up the current system so that he can keep all the money that America’s Team makes and spend as much of it as he wants on the players he wants, in search of the string of Lombardi Trophies that he covets. And maybe Mike Brown is content for the Bengals to be 4-12 each year as long as he can pay the players as little as he wants while still making a tidy profit. It only takes nine owners to block any and all proposals for a new deal, and if only nine owners ultimately want an NFL in which they can run their businesses as they see fit, the other 23 owners and everyone else who cares about the game will have to deal with it. Perhaps the only way to knock this possible plan off course is for folks with the influence of Collinsworth to openly ask “why?” and for the rest of us to adopt a position other than “wake us up when regular-season games are missed.” By then, it could be too late for anyone to make a difference. PFT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26 |
[quote]What don't you guys get about this?[/quote]
I'll ask you the same thing. Who is responsible for the leagues existence? The owners. They are the ones who write the checks. Period. Just as in every job, everyone is replaceable. You do understand that, correct? Even football players. There will be a line a mile long, that will include current players, if the owners could get rid of all of them and restart. 1500 well paying jobs are not hard to fill.
[quote]The players were getting a percentage of the take that is perfectly in line with all the other major league sports.
The owners want to take $1 billion off the top before the players get their percentage plus they want to cut the percentage.[/quote]
yup. They signed a bad deal the last time and they know it. They are trying to fix that.
[quote]Not one person on this board would agree to a deal like that. Not one. [/quote]
LMAO - yeah, nobody on here has taken a pay cut or worked for less than they did 5 years ago. If it meant keeping a job, especially a VERY good paying one, I believe a vast majority would take that deal. Let's see, I can make 1M per year or go find a job that I likely have no experience in and make 60k if I'm lucky. Easy choice for me on that one. Guess I'm just not too bright.
[quote]The players do not really expect the draft to disappear. Throwing that into the mix is a negotiating tactic and nothing more. They also know that a rookie salary cap is likely but if they're giving that up they want something in return. Again, that's called negotiating.[/quote]
And what the owners are doing is not negotiating? Both sides are doing the same thing, the owners just have the upper hand. They know it and they are going to use it. When you have the upper hand in negotiating you use it. That's called negotiating.
[quote]To say that the owners are looking at the viability of the "game" in the future is really kinda funny considering that they're the ones that started this whole thing by opting out of a deal they signed just a few years ago then locked the players out. Now there is talk of them just dropping the season altogether to get around the stay of the lockout if that happens. Yeah, they're the "guardians" of the game alright.... :rolleyes:[/quote]
Again, they signed a bad deal, they know it and are trying to fix it. They are not guardians of the game, that is not what I ever meant. They are guardians of their business and they want it to be successful in the long term. That in turn will guard the game, but their is no doubt that they are protecting their business interest first and foremost. All businesses want to remain profitable for the long term and I feel that is what they are trying to do.
[quote]The players are employees. Not serfs. They have a certain amount of rights. You may not like it but that doesn't change a thing.[/quote]
I have no problems with what the players are doing. They are free to follow their beliefs. I feel that they are compensated pretty well - to call them serfs is almost as bad as Mendenhall saying they are slaves - for what they do. I guess they don't agree, and that is their right. I think it is a very short sighted stance on their part as they simply have a lot more to lose than the owners. They are risking the loss of a very, very nice life style.
[quote]I do have a question for the guys that are seemingly swingin' in the owner's jocks on these issues......The next time you go to a game make a note of how much time you spend watching the owner. Then explain to me why the players shouldn't get a fair share of the pie. [/quote]
I don't watch the owner. I watch the players of course. Why would I watch the owner? I don't even understand how this relates to what side of this you are on. If the owners replaced every one of the players that were willing to work as "serfs" I'd still go to the games and watch the players not the owner. Your argument here is part of the problem IMO - you don't think the players are replaceable and I think that might be how they feel as well. I have news for you - they are replaceable.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Don't kid yourself. Not one person on this board (I should qualify something here - no one with half a brain) would go belly up as soon as the boss walked up and said, "You're taking an 18% pay cut". Not if they have any alternatives to basically bending over and pulling down their pants. The players have alternatives. They are using them. I see nothing wrong with that. Your big deal seems to be that they are replaceable so they should curl up in a ball and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another". Of course, they are replaceable. EVERYONE is replaceable. The question is would it make sense to arbitrarily just replace everyone. The answer is, Hell, no. That would be stupid. You obviously have so much envy for the players' lifestyle that it's coloring your opinion of the whole matter. The problem with that is even if they dumped every single player on every single team and restocked with the schlubs in the UFL, CFL and college those guys are still gonna make more than you or I and the ticket prices won't go down. So exactly what will you have gained then? You'll be happy watching and paying for an inferior product, I guess.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,762 Likes: 56
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,762 Likes: 56 |
It's the owners who assume the risk.
They run huge organizations with gigantic payrolls and thousands of employees. If a water main breaks in the stadium on Friday night, who do you think pays for the repair? They don't send a bill to Jake Delhomme, I can promise you that.
This is how business runs guys. The dudes that own the business make the decisions. I am amazed at how presumptuous these players are sometimes. Do they understand that a three year deal at a million per would earn them the same amount of money in 3 YEARS that a guy making $67,000/yr for 45 years makes ( and 67 grand is more than double the median wage of a clevelander)? This, to me, is the heart of the problem. These guys are PLAYING A GAME for a living. They get paid a ton of money to do so. They recieved a college education FOR FREE. They live in the most luxurious environments available and they are idolized. I'm not just talking about the elites either.
Owners get the better end because they are rich. This describes the relationship between virtually every privately owned business in the world and their employees. You think Bill Ford would listen for a second if a bunch of employees walked into his office and demanded a large percentage of the profits? I'm thinking no.
I'm surprised that the league wouldn't just fire all players, get the scouting departments on the ground and field 53 players that can play the game. Arena, college, Canadian etc. There has to be 2000 or so guys out there who can play the game that are not under contract. Would the quality of the game suffer? Absolutely. But competitiveness wouldn't because the tide would be lowered for all. The competition is why I watch. Not so much to see some punk who wouldn't ever consider a job doing the crap work that a lot of us have to do daily (for our entire lives) just because he can run a 4.3. Or SOMTIMES catch a ball in traffic. I love the Browns because I love Cleveland. And if we put a team on the field that is wearing our colors and representing my town, I'll be proud. And I'll go to games.
The sense of entitlement these guys have just sickens me. Owners have always had it and that makes me sick too. But that's life. There has always been a divide between the super rich and the rest of us that has seemed unfair. But these current players didn't build the game as it stands. They weren't even born yet. They work for employers who are willing to pay them relative fortunes to play a game. To play a game.
Who here wouldn't take half of that deal in a second?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362 |
The only real argument I see on behalf of the players side is "They got that for the last X years ... so the owners should be content to continue on that same path."
If a business signs a bad deal, they may live with the terms of that deal, but they aren't going to say "OK, let's take our bad deal, that we never should have agreed to in the first place, and let's use that as a starting point to increase stuff for the employees ....." Not a chance.
The players lived high on the hog for a long period of time. Now the owners have decided that they can no longer afford that deal. The 2 sides need to agree on a deal .... not be forced into a deal by outside forces.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
It's the same as the housing bubble having burst. Been predicting that for years. It had/has to stop, and the owners have drawn a line.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26 |
Quote:
Don't kid yourself. Not one person on this board (I should qualify something here - no one with half a brain) would go belly up as soon as the boss walked up and said, "You're taking an 18% pay cut".
I guarantee you that many people on this board have taken an 18% pay cut. Be it that they were laid off and had to get another job or just took it because it's better than no job in the current economy. I've lowered my billing rate by 20% for a few clients this past year. I still make good money and it is better than getting nothing and them going to the competition. It hurts, yes, but it's something that has to be dealt with when things aren't going well. I still had my best year ever last year and am going to do very well again this year even though I took a theoretical pay cut.
Quote:
Not if they have any alternatives to basically bending over and pulling down their pants.
And what alternatives do the players have that will pay them even 18% less than they are making? I may be wrong, but I don't know of a lot of entry level jobs that start off at 375k. And it's not like they will instantly get 18% less - there will still be contracts and the elite players will still make a killing. The little guys will live quite well too.
Quote:
The players have alternatives. They are using them. I see nothing wrong with that.
Again, I have no problem with what they are doing I just think it is short sighted. They have no power in this negotiation IMO if the owners choose not to budge.
Quote:
Your big deal seems to be that they are replaceable so they should curl up in a ball and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another".
Of course, they are replaceable. EVERYONE is replaceable. The question is would it make sense to arbitrarily just replace everyone. The answer is, Hell, no. That would be stupid.
I don't think they should curl up in a ball. I think they should be realistic in that they make a nice living that really won't be that much different with a new agreement. You make it sound as if they are going to make 60k a year. They will still make millions and millions of dollars - pretty fair if you ask me. Especially in a career where the only show in town to pay you that kind of money for playing football is the NFL. Not a lot of other career options if you want to play football.
I'm not saying it would make sense to replace them, but if the did the league would be back to where it is currently at in 2-3 years I would guess. Again, no hard facts on this but just how I feel. I'd still watch as the competition would be level anyhow. Maybe I'm in the minority but I doubt it.
Quote:
You obviously have so much envy for the players' lifestyle that it's coloring your opinion of the whole matter.
 that's rich. Envy, LMAO. I could care less of every player made a billion dollars per year. I do not envy anyone who makes more money than I do - I'll leave that to the liberals to wage the class warfare. Good for them is what I say - way to go. I'm happy for people who are successful - most have worked their tails off, including football players, to get to where they are at. Kudos to them. The owners, for the most part, did the same - worked hard and became mega rich.
Your argument seems to be that the owners are already rich enough so what's the harm in giving it to the players.
My opinion is colored that the owners OWN the business and are the ones taking all of the risks. They are trying to make up for a mistake they made with the last agreement. It's been said many times before - what employee can walk into their boss and say "hey, I think you're making a ton of money - open your books, show me, and give me more of it". Sure, you can do that but you also better be prepared to find another job - and what other job are the players going to find that pays as well? I just think they are taking way too big of a risk - maybe they will win, I don't know and either way it won't change my love of watching the Browns play on Sunday.
Quote:
The problem with that is even if they dumped every single player on every single team and restocked with the schlubs in the UFL, CFL and college those guys are still gonna make more than you or I and the ticket prices won't go down. So exactly what will you have gained then?
You'll be happy watching and paying for an inferior product, I guess.
I've gained nothing but I can still watch competitive football on Sundays if I choose to do so. The players have gained less as they are out of work. The new players have gained a lot as they have a better jobs. The owners are still in control of their business which will be the case no matter what.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
Quote:
The NFL lockout is still on.
link
Quote:
And so when it appeared that no progress would be or could be made in mediation with both sides aiming for leverage in lieu of compromise — indeed, Steelers Art Rooney, II, said so on his way into Monday’s talks — it’s fitting in this crazy up-and-down, back-and-forth process that on a day when no one expected progress to be made, progress apparently has been made.
Sal Paolantonio of ESPN reports, citing Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller, that a breakthrough has occurred in the negotiations. Eller, who is one of the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by former players and consolidated with the Tom Brady antitrust case, said that U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan asked the owners at the outset of the day to make a new proposal, and the owners have agreed to do so.
Currently, the proposal is being formulated. Per Paolantonio, the players are very encouraged by the developments, and we think they should be. Given that the players never responded to the league’s March 11 offer, the NFL easily could have balked at the request to make a new offer as an invitation to bid against itself. By agreeing to make a new offer, the NFL has shown good faith, which possibly has helped to thaw the relationship between the two sides, at least a little.
The mediation will continue on Monday night until 9:00 p.m. CT, and Paolantonio said the overall mood is improving. The session is scheduled to continue tomorrow only. If real progress is being made, here’s hoping that gets extended.
Whether at this unlikeliest of junctures in the labor dispute a deal can be reached hinges largely on the quality of the offer that the owners make. In many non-economic respects, the offer extended on March 11 was well within the appropriate ballpark, including player-friendly terms like a tabling of the 18-game season for at least two years and the use of third-party arbitration in drug and steroids cases. The key will be, and has been, the money; if the NFL is willing to make firm guarantees on a per-team salary cap with a tight floor and a fair split on the so-called “true up” (i.e., any money earned over and above the league’s revenue projection), a deal could be struck.
There’s still a long way to go, especially since both sides as of this morning seemed to be intent on letting it ride through the Eighth Circuit’s ruling on the lifting of the lockout. Still, the only way to get a deal that both sides truly deem to be satisfactory comes from leveraging the uncertainty into a compromise, and abandoning the quest for the kind of leverage that necessarily will require the side without it to do a bad deal, which would put us right back in this same mess before
link #2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477 Likes: 162
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477 Likes: 162 |
I still will never understand how they think major progress can get accomplished with only 2 days scheduled... I know others have said it before, but I also think they'd be best served to have 2, maybe 3 guys on each side locked in a room at a hotel somewhere.... or hang out in a bar with some drinks for a couple of days... with how many people get into these talks I think it's tough to get anything done
ok done with my rant
I am happy to hear that the mood is warming up
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
If the owners want to sweeten the pot a bit, I think it's time they gave the revenue of jersey sales to the players. Now, not as one lump sum to be divided amongst them all but instead give to the individual player the revenue from his own jersey sales.
How well do you think the Pats line would protect Brady if he was capturing all the sales revenue and the line wasn't? Let's face it, who buys an OL jersey? Pitting player against player would be an interesting dynamic in this on-going saga.
Merchandise sales is part of league revenue sharing and this helps teams make payroll. The players already get a cut of it.....in salary.
What this boils down to is that the owners signed a bad deal last time. As I have mentioned before, people should read the CBA and see what the players were already getting and how much it is costing the owners. The "sweetening" of the pot can be accomplished with the rookie wage schedule that is desired to be implemented, as this would allow for more money to be shifted to veteran/proven players as opposed to David Klingler, Ryan Leaf, Brady Quinn, Brian Bosworth....etc etc etc. In addition, the 18 game schedule would provide more revenue which would in turn result in more pay for the players.
I feel that once June 3rd rolls around we see some things happening to move this along much swifter.....
I was listening to Sirius NFL radio on my way back from the lake yesterday where they stated the jersey sales went to the owners, very much like the concessions and parking. So argue with them about it.
As far as the OL jersey sales, we have one of the top LT's in the league and sure he's going to get a few jersey sales but with 160 starting OL in the league I'd venture a bet the average fan, not the type we get here that needs a life, but the average Joe (no pun intended) who sits in the stadium on the weekends, spending his cash, can't name 5 of those 160 with any degree of accuracy.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Collinsworth's opinion is waaay more important to him than anyone else.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26 |
Well that is some descent news. Get it done! 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362 |
http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/15070798/nfl-players-need-to-accept-reality-and-admit-defeatNFL players need to accept reality and admit defeat By Mike Freeman CBSSports.com National Columnist The text from one member of the former union was succinct: "We've lost. It's probably over. We got our asses kicked." Another player said he was heading home for the summer to work out, play basketball and finally clean out his cluttered basement. Similar texts came in. Players knew their new normal had arrived. No football. Nothing. For months. And that, in a nutshell, is where we are. The players have been defeated. The owners have probably won. The only thing left to do in this ugly, brutal fight is for the owners to decide what to do with the carcass. Add mayo? A little hot sauce? I'm sorry to say to the players, whom I respect and admire, the fight is likely done. Dragging this out only makes it worse for fans. This is now like the end of an election where a network has declared one side the victor and the loser refuses to accept it's over. This isn't just a victory for the owners. It's a victory for Roger Goodell, who has appeared stubborn, arrogant and at times mean-spirited. Goodell and the owners haven't taken the noblest of paths but this ruling means they have likely taken a successful one. When you read the ruling it does not in any way bode well for the future of players in court. The 8th circuit granted the permanent stay but it was also a template for the upcoming battle next month. Basically, this ruling was a foreshadowing. This was one of several key paragraphs written by the 8th circuit: "Both sides raise valid points, and this is a case in which one party or the other likely will suffer some degree of irreparable harm no matter how this court resolves the motion for a stay pending appeal. We do not agree, however, with the district court's apparent view that the balance of the equities tilts heavily in favor of the Players. The district court gave little or no weight to the harm caused to the League by an injunction issued in the midst of an ongoing dispute over terms and conditions of employment." Translation: players, you were hurt by the lockout, but not nearly as much as the lower court said you were. That's not good for the players. Their entire strategy has been to use the court system as an equalizer to a more powerful and wealthier owner base. It seems as if the 8th circuit isn't all that sympathetic. The 8th strongly disagreed with the lower court. That probably won't change in any future cases. This is no shock since the 8th is extremely conservative and pro business friendly. The 8th is the Tea Party of the court system. "In sum, we think the League has met its burden to demonstrate that it likely will suffer some degree of irreparable harm without a stay," the court wrote, "and the balance of the equities does not favor the Players so decidedly that it should outweigh our present view about likelihood of success on the merits. No, the future isn't easily predicted, and things could change. The Judge David Doty ruling on the TV fund lockout issue could also have some impact and be a difference maker. Could. Because the owners, if Doty orders them to pay billions, would appeal that ruling as well and guess where an appeal would go? Yep, the 8th circuit. The former union isn't stupid. They see the same thing. While reports of a mediation breakthrough in Minneapolis are extremely optimistic the union now has to be in a better mood to listen because the 8th circuit has given the owners the biggest hammer to date. It's a hammer that would make Thor envious. I'm told that, contrary to a report by ESPN, there has been no meaningful progress in mediation. The players need to cut a deal now. This doesn't mean they take scraps from the owners. Thank you sir, may I have another. No, not like that. Take the best possible deal and get back to work because the courts have sent a message. Ignoring that message would be foolhardy and cost the players both money and the loyalty of fans that so far have mostly backed the players. The players lost and while owners shouldn't be doing any touchdown dances the signal sent by the 8th is clear. It's probably over.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362 |
Lotta interesting stuff in these articles. I do find the spin interesting given that the players were the ones who walked, decertified, and for quite a while, refused to negotiate. They tried playing the stall and sue technique ..... and it failed miserably. http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29346764Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA Posted on: May 16, 2011 6:25 pm Edited on: May 16, 2011 8:29 pm Posted by Josh Katzowitz The lockout is on, and it’s going to stay on until at least June 3. That’s the word from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued this evening a permanent stay to District Cout Judge Susan Nelson’s decision to end the lockout. The owners and players will argue their case in front of the appeals court June 3, so this decision isn’t a surprise (it’d be a bit awkward, if the judges didn’t grant the permanent stay, which meant the lockout was lifted, only to overturn Nelson’s decision, meaning the lockout was back on). Once again, Judge Kermit Bye dissented on the judgment, the same as he did when the appeals court granted the temporary stay April 29. As the court wrote, it had to consider granting the stay on four factors: 1) has the stay applicant made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) whether there will be irreparable harm without a stay; 3) whether other interested parties will be injured by the stay; and 4) where the public interest lies. Ultimately, the appeals court believed that all those factors balanced together equaled a permanent stay. Reading through the majority decision with my untrained eye, it doesn’t sound great for the players’ chances going forward. When you read phrases like, “The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act” and “Our present view is that (the players’) interpretation of the Act is unlikely to prevail” and (the biggest body blow of all) “we have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout,” it can’t leave the NFLPA with a great feeling. Bye dissented, writing the following in summary: In sum, because I believe the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not apply in a situation where the Players are no longer represented by the union, I would conclude the NFL did not make the necessary strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, as it relates to the fourth factor, the NFL’s failure to make the necessary showing on the merits detracts from the NFL’s argument that the public interest favors the application of labor laws in the current context. At best, when considering the public interest in having a 2011 NFL season and, by extension, continuing with normal operations necessary for that objective, the public interest factor is a wash. Taken in conjunction with the balance of harms, which clearly favors the Players during the pendency of the expedited appeal, I would deny the NFL’s motion for a stay. So, for fans and players, today’s ruling was not a good one, even though, like I said above, it wasn’t a surprise. It’s a big victory for the owners – it’s their first really big win in the court system, and now, the leverage is pointed in their direction – and it also means we’ll continue with this stalemate for at least another month. Which means that you can forget about OTAs and offseason workouts. Training camp still could be held, but right now, that’s in real danger as well. But perhaps more important than any of that, the players I think are in real trouble going forward. And so are the fans who want more football and less legal analysis. UPDATED (7:13 p.m. ET): The NFLPA has released a statement in response to the ruling. "The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season." UPDATED II (7:48 p.m. ET): The NFL has released its own statement. "It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans. This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation."
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 30
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 30 |
Quote:
When you read phrases like, “The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act” and “Our present view is that (the players’) interpretation of the Act is unlikely to prevail” and (the biggest body blow of all) “we have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout,” it can’t leave the NFLPA with a great feeling.
Bye dissented, writing the following in summary:
In sum, because I believe the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not apply in a situation where the Players are no longer represented by the union, I would conclude the NFL did not make the necessary strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, as it relates to the fourth factor, the NFL’s failure to make the necessary showing on the merits detracts from the NFL’s argument that the public interest favors the application of labor laws in the current context. At best, when considering the public interest in having a 2011 NFL season and, by extension, continuing with normal operations necessary for that objective, the public interest factor is a wash. Taken in conjunction with the balance of harms, which clearly favors the Players during the pendency of the expedited appeal, I would deny the NFL’s motion for a stay.
So, for fans and players, today’s ruling was not a good one, even though, like I said above, it wasn’t a surprise. It’s a big victory for the owners – it’s their first really big win in the court system, and now, the leverage is pointed in their direction – and it also means we’ll continue with this stalemate for at least another month.
This sounds to me that the inevitable will happen and the owners win? My legalnese isn't very good so I am curious if those with better knowledge can explain this stuff in simple form. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362 |
Basically, if the players are not represented by a union, then the lockout is legal because no union is being locked out ...... but if the players are represented by a union, then if they don't negotiate then the court is not inclined to end the lockout ....
Basically I think that the players screwed themselves by overplaying the only card they had ... which was decertification. They slammed that card down early, and walked away from the table. They didn't count on a court holding them accountable for their actions.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6 |
I completely disagree with the Author's take on today's ruling. While technically a lifting of the lockout would have opened the NFL up for business, I think it would have resulted in a complete shutdown and this thing would have dragged out forever.
I just never saw this as a winnable situation for the players. De Smith is the personality type to make 32 grumpy old men rather burn down their business than allow him to gloat in victory. Even in today's ruling the man continues to poke the bear.
Last edited by Mourgrym; 05/16/11 10:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 Likes: 632
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 Likes: 632 |
I completely agree with you on De Smith. His arrogance, selfishness and agenda completely showed through any sort of facade he was trying to put on to gain public support. His first failure was the use of the term "business partners."
The best representative personality for the players IMO would have been a more genuine personality who knew and presented the facts simply and succinctly to the media in a light most favorable to the players. I feel that would have given the players more of an initial leverage and gotten negotiations flowing the first time around.
The fact the players union had no response to the owners' press release after negotiations broke down the first time was also a huge blow against them IMO.
A lot of us on this board (I think you're one of them Mourg), predicted De Smith being the reason the players would fall flat on their face in the end. I think it's shaping up exactly that way.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83 |
I think that somewhere along the way between circa 1988 and 2011, the NFL contracts for the 1st round players hit what would have been mostly beneficial for the players and not too destructive to the owners wallets.
I think around 1990 there was 1 player making 1 million a year in the NFL and the " real value of a 1990 dollar vs a 2011 dollar can be debated, but they sure weren't paying 8 or 9 million a year for a db just because he was taken with the 4th overall pick.
I think Tim Couch's first contract was 7 million a year and he was a Qb, 1st overall pick and that was 1999.
Somewhere along the way, ( and both sides knew this would be restructured in 2011 and this year was coming), but somewhere along the way, they ( the owners) just seemed to give in to the demand of what seemed to me to be a 10% annual increase in the slotted first round picks contract from the year before.
Now if both sides knew this would be re-structured in 2011, and if it passed the point of fair, or the point of its destructing the owners wallets, in 2006, or 2007, or somewhere along the line... if that happened, then the owners have been counting on 2011 to get here so they could re right the ship to something more reasonable
reason that no db is worth 20 million a year or even half of that, no matter what pick they are selected, ( not just db's it could be position to compensation at a number of areas)
So if the ship is re- righted to something where the next 10 years come along and the 1st round picks make somthing like Tim Couch's contract of 7 million a year ...
and the perpetual 10% annual increase on last years slot which would have them reaching 100 million a year by somewhere around 2020-2030, for the top 4 picks... is done away with.
Then I can't say the players have really lost, they may have just returned to plant both feet on the ground.
What would the price of a season ticket be if the top draft picks got 100 million a year?
30,000 a seat? for the best seat in the house, non luxury box?
13,000?
I don't think anybody loses if they can find a way to properly compensate rookies as they play throughout their career.
What if they mandate 3 yr contracts, with an incentive to stay with the original team for the 2nd contract vs another team? Complete free agency after the 6th year.
I agree with one argument, the players have been trying for the largest original contract, because that is the biggest one they will get, for the vast majority of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If the owners want to sweeten the pot a bit, I think it's time they gave the revenue of jersey sales to the players. Now, not as one lump sum to be divided amongst them all but instead give to the individual player the revenue from his own jersey sales.
How well do you think the Pats line would protect Brady if he was capturing all the sales revenue and the line wasn't? Let's face it, who buys an OL jersey? Pitting player against player would be an interesting dynamic in this on-going saga.
Merchandise sales is part of league revenue sharing and this helps teams make payroll. The players already get a cut of it.....in salary.
What this boils down to is that the owners signed a bad deal last time. As I have mentioned before, people should read the CBA and see what the players were already getting and how much it is costing the owners. The "sweetening" of the pot can be accomplished with the rookie wage schedule that is desired to be implemented, as this would allow for more money to be shifted to veteran/proven players as opposed to David Klingler, Ryan Leaf, Brady Quinn, Brian Bosworth....etc etc etc. In addition, the 18 game schedule would provide more revenue which would in turn result in more pay for the players.
I feel that once June 3rd rolls around we see some things happening to move this along much swifter.....
I was listening to Sirius NFL radio on my way back from the lake yesterday where they stated the jersey sales went to the owners, very much like the concessions and parking. So argue with them about it.
As far as the OL jersey sales, we have one of the top LT's in the league and sure he's going to get a few jersey sales but with 160 starting OL in the league I'd venture a bet the average fan, not the type we get here that needs a life, but the average Joe (no pun intended) who sits in the stadium on the weekends, spending his cash, can't name 5 of those 160 with any degree of accuracy.
I'm not going to argue with anyone about it, but I will attempt to explain it to you. The guys on Sirius were right.....to an extent. Owners do get concessions and parking revenue. And they share gate revenue. They DO get merchandise sales inside their stadium/team store, but not that merchandise sold elsewhere, it is shared revenue. Giving the revenue from jerseys sold to each individual player is an asinine idea, not to mention impossible to logistically track.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Oh good lord, nothing is impossible to track these days. While the idea was a bit tongue in cheek; a random thought based on one simple comment they made, considering the owners want another billion off the top, the fact they'll have to give something to get it, it's hardly asinine. But thanks for sharing.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,500 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,500 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
I completely disagree with the Author's take on today's ruling. While technically a lifting of the lockout would have opened the NFL up for business, I think it would have resulted in a complete shutdown and this thing would have dragged out forever.
I just never saw this as a winnable situation for the players.
...it looks as if the players lawyers never looked beyond Judge Nelson's court and did not plan for an appeal to the stacked 8th circuit court, dominated by conservative judges.
Maybe the player's lawyers thought their case was strong and soundly based on the rule of law, especially since Judge Doty, a conservative judge, had ruled in their favor previously.
But Judge Doty did not take the case, Judge Nelson was assigned to the case. She may have ruled in favor of the player's case just as Doty did previously, but she was not a conservative judge, which made it easier for the 8th circuit to overrule her findings, imo.
JMHO, but the owners would not have appealed this case to the 8th circuit if they did not know they had a good chance to win the appeal.
It's all about the politics of the courts...not about the rule of law.
...jmho...mac
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
jersey sales. Aside from their last name being on it, which is hardly a copyright or likeness infringement, what investment do the players make toward them?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
jersey sales. Aside from their last name being on it, which is hardly a copyright or likeness infringement, what investment do the players make toward them?
not that it matters as it was a bit of a joke above. but, I think with the LeBron debacle, we all showed that the name on the front of the jersey means more than the name on the back. and, the owners have control of the name on the front.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
...and, the owners have control of the name on the front.
And by what the 8th circuit court said yesterday, the owners have control of the names on the back too.  
Most are reporting that the battle is over. The owners will eventually win the war. It comes down to when the players will admit defeat and agree on a new deal. I just don't see DeMaurice and the players giving in any time soon (the rank and file guys would glady give in 3 minutes ago). I still think we're going to lose a few games of the season.
If all the leverage is true, I think the owners will attempt to squash the players completely, sending them back to the stone age. I know I wouldn't want to find a middle ground if I were an owner....if I hold all the cards, I try taking it all.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,478 Likes: 26 |
As I've been saying all along - the owners hold and have held all of the cards. I just can't believe the players/players union did not see this. I agree, the owners are now going to squash the players, which they wouldn't have done if an agreement were reached earlier. It looks like this time, the players are going to be the ones getting the rotten deal more than likely.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,592 Likes: 815
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,592 Likes: 815 |
Mac....it isn't about conservative, liberal etc.
This stay is temporary...a final ruling hasn't been issued.
Say they allowed the league to be open.
Talk about irreparable harm. Teams would have started the FA period....say in the middle of that it was held the owners indeed had the right to lock out....now you've got some teams who signed a few players, others in the negotiation process...it would have been a mess.
This way, once it is opened, it is opened for good...not a few days or weeks here, closed a few weeks there.
Talk about a competitive imbalance.
It's best to put everything on hold until the 8th COP renders it's decision.
Why is everything political for you??
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: 42,153 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,153 Likes: 134 |
You hit on it Peen.. this is temporary. I guess the next phase is to take place the first week of june.
Any victory celebrations before that time are fleeting at best
#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: 8,528 Likes: 6
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6 |
its over for the players via the court system. June 3rd is just a formality at this point. If they want to play football, they need to get back to the negotiation table and work out a fair CBA. Their only hope is to win big on the TV revenue suit and even that seems likely to get appealed to the 8th circuit as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,846 Likes: 108
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,846 Likes: 108 |
I acknowledge the politics in the choice of venue by the NFL, just hoping to get favorable ruling there, except that the judge changed. My question is for down the road: After the June event, what is the court's limitations as far as settlement? The court ordered some further mediation; can it impose a detailed settlement to any or even all issues? This is old and frustrating; does the law permit this stalemate to drag on endlessly? Or can they order a time settlement, like reach agreement by this date or...? Trying to see some light, but all I have is the tunnel as far what is to be expected next.  
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,592 Likes: 815
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,592 Likes: 815 |
The court has no authority to impose any settlement. Only interpret the laws as they apply.
The only way a "court" would have that authority is if both sides agreed to a mediated binding settlement.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement Part 5
|
|
