Other Resources My Cup of Joe » No NFL lockout thread? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2011-03-16 10:09 AM

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: No NFL lockout thread?

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.



2011-03-16 10:18 AM
in reply to: #3400197

User image

Elite
2791
2000500100100252525
Denver
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 9:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.





He went to OU. I can imagine he's not the brightest guy around.
2011-03-16 10:23 AM
in reply to: #3400209

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
wavedog - 2011-03-16 10:18 AM
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 9:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.

He went to OU. I can imagine he's not the brightest guy around.

Hey now.  At least it wasn't Nebraska where the N stands for (k)Nowledge. 

But seriously, still the same thing as most professional league squabbles.  Billionaires fighting millionaires.  Sad.

2011-03-16 10:25 AM
in reply to: #3400197

User image

Expert
1037
100025
Portland, OR
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.

I am so unsurprised by the lockout that I'm kind of over it by now.  I think we'll see a couple games lost at the beginning of the season before the owners give in. 

I AM shocked about how open (and candid) a lot of the players and owners are being about it.  No matter how the players slice it, these owners will still be paying their salaries when the time comes, so it would be wise to bite their tongues! 

I still stand by my original thoughts (that got ripped apart in a much earlier thread) that the owners are a lot more replaceable than the players!  We'll see if they realize that!

2011-03-16 10:25 AM
in reply to: #3400197

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.




But there are so many parallels.

Just like American slaves, he makes over $12 million a year, more in endorsement deals, is adored by millions of fans, plays a game which he presumably loves and which paid for his education, and will never have to work a day in his life after his 10-year career ends if he invests his money semi-wisely and lives within financial boundaries most people can only dream of.

2011-03-16 10:29 AM
in reply to: #3400224

User image

Elite
2791
2000500100100252525
Denver
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
scoobysdad - 2011-03-16 9:25 AM

crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.




But there are so many parallels.

Just like American slaves, he makes over $12 million a year, more in endorsement deals, is adored by millions of fans, plays a game which he presumably loves and which paid for his education, and will never have to work a day in his life after his 10-year career ends if he invests his money semi-wisely and lives within financial boundaries most people can only dream of.




And he drinks Muscle Milk.


2011-03-16 10:29 AM
in reply to: #3400197

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

I've searched around, but of course, my googling skills must be lacking.  Anyone know what the exact sticking point is between the two groups?

2011-03-16 10:31 AM
in reply to: #3400228

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:29 AM

I've searched around, but of course, my googling skills must be lacking.  Anyone know what the exact sticking point is between the two groups?



About $1 billion, player pensions and whether to play 18 regular season games or 16.

2011-03-16 10:59 AM
in reply to: #3400232

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
scoobysdad - 2011-03-16 10:31 AM
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:29 AM

I've searched around, but of course, my googling skills must be lacking.  Anyone know what the exact sticking point is between the two groups?

About $1 billion, player pensions and whether to play 18 regular season games or 16.

Huh.  Interesting.  Thanks scoob. 

2011-03-16 12:05 PM
in reply to: #3400228

Extreme Veteran
340
10010010025
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 9:29 AM

I've searched around, but of course, my googling skills must be lacking.  Anyone know what the exact sticking point is between the two groups?

As of last Friday, the owners apparently had dropped the 18 game season (Or at least tabled it for a few years- only to be revisited if the players approve). As well, the owners had dropped the revenue divide by about 50% depending on what you believe.

So at this point, the biggest issue is the players demand for 10 years of independently audited financials from every team. The players have decided that unless they get this information then they are not going to take less money. IOW they want the league to prove on paper that teams profits are not growing as fast as players compensation.

The players believe litigation will net the best deal. I happen to disagree and I believe the players are doing a horrible PR job compared to the owners.

Bottom line, the size of the pie they are fighting for may soon be smaller than either side stood to lose had they just done a deal last week.

 

 

2011-03-16 12:06 PM
in reply to: #3400454

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
WaitingGuilty - 2011-03-16 12:05 PM
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 9:29 AM

I've searched around, but of course, my googling skills must be lacking.  Anyone know what the exact sticking point is between the two groups?

As of last Friday, the owners apparently had dropped the 18 game season (Or at least tabled it for a few years- only to be revisited if the players approve). As well, the owners had dropped the revenue divide by about 50% depending on what you believe.

So at this point, the biggest issue is the players demand for 10 years of independently audited financials from every team. The players have decided that unless they get this information then they are not going to take less money. IOW they want the league to prove on paper that teams profits are not growing as fast as players compensation.

The players believe litigation will net the best deal. I happen to disagree and I believe the players are doing a horrible PR job compared to the owners.

Bottom line, the size of the pie they are fighting for may soon be smaller than either side stood to lose had they just done a deal last week.

 

 


Thanks for the clarification.  I appreciate it.


2011-03-16 12:15 PM
in reply to: #3400223

User image

Champion
8540
50002000100050025
the colony texas
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
SoccerGK - 2011-03-16 10:25 AM
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.

I am so unsurprised by the lockout that I'm kind of over it by now.  I think we'll see a couple games lost at the beginning of the season before the owners give in. 

I AM shocked about how open (and candid) a lot of the players and owners are being about it.  No matter how the players slice it, these owners will still be paying their salaries when the time comes, so it would be wise to bite their tongues! 

I still stand by my original thoughts (that got ripped apart in a much earlier thread) that the owners are a lot more replaceable than the players!  We'll see if they realize that!

 

 Ok I'm not ripping on ya, I just honestly dont' understand what the part I bolded from your post.   If the avg career for a player is 3 or 4 years and some owners have been in the family for a looooong time how are the owners more replacable?   I'm thinking along those career lines and the number of college players vs the amount of people that could get the money together to buy a team would favor that the players are more replacable.  

I'm sure you have a pretty good angle on the how's and why's of the owners being more replacable though. I'd like to hear it, if you got bashed before just PM me since I'd enjoy hearing it.  



Edited by Gaarryy 2011-03-16 12:16 PM
2011-03-16 12:52 PM
in reply to: #3400485

User image

Expert
1037
100025
Portland, OR
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
Gaarryy - 2011-03-16 12:15 PM
SoccerGK - 2011-03-16 10:25 AM
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.

I am so unsurprised by the lockout that I'm kind of over it by now.  I think we'll see a couple games lost at the beginning of the season before the owners give in. 

I AM shocked about how open (and candid) a lot of the players and owners are being about it.  No matter how the players slice it, these owners will still be paying their salaries when the time comes, so it would be wise to bite their tongues! 

I still stand by my original thoughts (that got ripped apart in a much earlier thread) that the owners are a lot more replaceable than the players!  We'll see if they realize that!

 

 Ok I'm not ripping on ya, I just honestly dont' understand what the part I bolded from your post.   If the avg career for a player is 3 or 4 years and some owners have been in the family for a looooong time how are the owners more replacable?   I'm thinking along those career lines and the number of college players vs the amount of people that could get the money together to buy a team would favor that the players are more replacable.  

I'm sure you have a pretty good angle on the how's and why's of the owners being more replacable though. I'd like to hear it, if you got bashed before just PM me since I'd enjoy hearing it.  

Ha! I have no problem with a civilized convo about it, of course!  I love talking sports anyway.

From my perspective, there are a lot of VERY rich people who would be willing to put their money down to start a competing league and own competing teams for the current players if the NFL owners don't pull this together.  There are a lot of people who want to buy franchises, but nobody ever sells them (and why would you?), and there are a lot of investors that would love to start new franchises as expansion teams in the league, but those are extremely difficult to get started up because of a lot of league rules.  There are FAR fewer very talented players that people would actually pay to watch.  If the talent moves, my guess is that the fans will, too. 

Look at other previous "competitors."  Their fan bases were very small because they weren't pulling the big names.  But think how the USFL could have done if they had pulled some more guys from big colleges (which they tried so hard to do, and did relatively well) and prevented them from being drafted into the NFL!  With that, and without Trump's guidance, they may still be around today. 

After all, would you rather watch Tom Brady play for the New Jersey Generals or Joe Schmoe from St. Ambrose University play for the New England Patriots?  If the players leave the league, I think fans would follow.

What do you think?

2011-03-16 12:55 PM
in reply to: #3400197

User image

Expert
1087
1000252525
Portland
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
I wish I had a golden goose like this to kill... 
2011-03-16 1:04 PM
in reply to: #3400197

User image

Member
5452
50001001001001002525
NC
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

I received the invoice for my season tickets the day after the lockout began.  Perfect timing.

 

2011-03-16 1:06 PM
in reply to: #3400562

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
SoccerGK - 2011-03-16 12:52 PM

Gaarryy - 2011-03-16 12:15 PM
SoccerGK - 2011-03-16 10:25 AM
crowny2 - 2011-03-16 10:09 AM

I'm surprised.

Did anyone see what Adrian Peterson said today.  Comparing the barganing issue to "modern day slavery".  Ugh.  I can't believe he went there.

I am so unsurprised by the lockout that I'm kind of over it by now.  I think we'll see a couple games lost at the beginning of the season before the owners give in. 

I AM shocked about how open (and candid) a lot of the players and owners are being about it.  No matter how the players slice it, these owners will still be paying their salaries when the time comes, so it would be wise to bite their tongues! 

I still stand by my original thoughts (that got ripped apart in a much earlier thread) that the owners are a lot more replaceable than the players!  We'll see if they realize that!

 

 Ok I'm not ripping on ya, I just honestly dont' understand what the part I bolded from your post.   If the avg career for a player is 3 or 4 years and some owners have been in the family for a looooong time how are the owners more replacable?   I'm thinking along those career lines and the number of college players vs the amount of people that could get the money together to buy a team would favor that the players are more replacable.  

I'm sure you have a pretty good angle on the how's and why's of the owners being more replacable though. I'd like to hear it, if you got bashed before just PM me since I'd enjoy hearing it.  

Ha! I have no problem with a civilized convo about it, of course!  I love talking sports anyway.

From my perspective, there are a lot of VERY rich people who would be willing to put their money down to start a competing league and own competing teams for the current players if the NFL owners don't pull this together.  There are a lot of people who want to buy franchises, but nobody ever sells them (and why would you?), and there are a lot of investors that would love to start new franchises as expansion teams in the league, but those are extremely difficult to get started up because of a lot of league rules.  There are FAR fewer very talented players that people would actually pay to watch.  If the talent moves, my guess is that the fans will, too. 

Look at other previous "competitors."  Their fan bases were very small because they weren't pulling the big names.  But think how the USFL could have done if they had pulled some more guys from big colleges (which they tried so hard to do, and did relatively well) and prevented them from being drafted into the NFL!  With that, and without Trump's guidance, they may still be around today. 

After all, would you rather watch Tom Brady play for the New Jersey Generals or Joe Schmoe from St. Ambrose University play for the New England Patriots?  If the players leave the league, I think fans would follow.

What do you think?




Totally disagree. The owners have the ultimate leverage over the players because they own the NFL BRAND-- the team names, the traditions, the fan loyalties, college draft rights, coaches and the TV/Radio/Web contracts.

If you think Tom Brady and Adrian Peterson going to another as yet-to-be created league would have an enormous impact, I've got a USFL franchise to sell you.






2011-03-16 1:50 PM
in reply to: #3400562

User image

Champion
8540
50002000100050025
the colony texas
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

 

Ha! I have no problem with a civilized convo about it, of course!  I love talking sports anyway.

From my perspective, there are a lot of VERY rich people who would be willing to put their money down to start a competing league and own competing teams for the current players if the NFL owners don't pull this together.  There are a lot of people who want to buy franchises, but nobody ever sells them (and why would you?), and there are a lot of investors that would love to start new franchises as expansion teams in the league, but those are extremely difficult to get started up because of a lot of league rules.  There are FAR fewer very talented players that people would actually pay to watch.  If the talent moves, my guess is that the fans will, too. 

Look at other previous "competitors."  Their fan bases were very small because they weren't pulling the big names.  But think how the USFL could have done if they had pulled some more guys from big colleges (which they tried so hard to do, and did relatively well) and prevented them from being drafted into the NFL!  With that, and without Trump's guidance, they may still be around today. 

After all, would you rather watch Tom Brady play for the New Jersey Generals or Joe Schmoe from St. Ambrose University play for the New England Patriots?  If the players leave the league, I think fans would follow.

What do you think?

 

hmm I actually hadn't thought about it along those lines, and you bring up a few good points actually.  Going all the way back to the good ol days when Al Davis was actually alive and not the robot cyborg that replaced him a couple of years ago, along with the other teams that competed with the NFL and were absorbed into the NFL.  There have only been a few? couple attempts to make another league.  USFL, XFL and I'm not really counting the Europe NFL attempt.  Then again how many times have they (NFL) tried to put a team in LA. now. and they are still trying.  Heck in a way to support your point, Learner gave Modell bad advice to move the browns, and who got the new browns.. Lerner.  Hmmm   maybe that's the best way to become a new owner trick the old one to leave town.

I think fans just have become to conditioned to the NFL "Brand" if you will. Even though it's a tri board I won't make the obvious comparison to people that flood the WTC "ironman" brand vs the non M-dot's (even though rev 3 is getting popular). It would be like a coke drinking switching to the Kroger brand since a big name endorses it.   Since (just my opinion) that fans are more loyal to a team than a player,  If a player switched teams, I think the fans would label him a traitor and still root for their team mostly because the players come and go so quickly while the team is always there. So that new league would really have to develop their own players right out of school.  And even the money is important, I would think players and fans would think of it as a lessor league and not give credit to those players.

Or look at the NBA where they expanded too fast and the quality has dropped to the point of the league taking over a team, and thinking of contracting a few teams to keep their quality of product higher

But lets look at the NFL landscape right now, since I think this could be a perfect storm for what you described to actually happen.  Lots of players are available, the rules are changing so quite a few fans are complaining it's not really football anymore(players fined for hits) and drug testing.  IF a dozen owners could come together quickly, scoop up some name players, get a TV contract, and promote it as old school rules, where just about anything goes, then say there are no drug testing standards (I'll drop my augment that all players must test positive for roids/HGH at this time)  Just do what you want.   It might be gimmicky enough to get some traction.  The Tough thing is where would they play, since I'm sure the current owners wouldn't want to rent out their facilities to the new league.  The big thing is that it's always tough to invade a new territory  of something that has a huge market presence.  whether it's Coke, McDonald's, Zipp wheels 

In the end I think it's the players that will blink first.. They are asking for something that the NFL actually doesn't have.  Detailed records of each team,  Owner really don't want to open up their books to the other owners I'm guessing. And the owners know how to make and handle money for the most part.  The players not so much, considering that most players end up bankrupt within  8 years of playing.  ( but maybe thats NBA).  Plus players only have so much time to play the game, losing time hurts them more than the owners. since they are not only missing a paycheck for that time but someone like  P. Manning misses a season and he is playing until the age of 41/42 to try to catch Favre record as an example. 

It's probably pretty obvious that I'm pro owners on this.  I view the players demand to an employee walking into the business owners office and asking for a raise, and when being told no, telling the owner that they need to see the financial to prove that they don't get a raise.   A. Peterson's comment that caught my attention the most was not the slave comment but him saying the owners weren't treating the players like co-owners/partners.   the players are not co-owners IMHO. but rather contract employees.  Players come and go, like you said owners are there for the long haul.  

You have some good points though

 

2011-03-16 2:14 PM
in reply to: #3400197

User image

Expert
1037
100025
Portland, OR
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

I do totally agree with ALL of your points.  My entire argument is founded on the fact that at least the majority of the NFL players stuck together on this and left the league.  Obviously, if one of two guys go, nobody's going to care too awfully much.  So it's not just switching from Coke to Kroger brand because of one person, it's really switching from Coke to Kroger because Kroger took Coke's product.  If the players did this, they could get paychecks instead of having to give into the owners' demands.

I am USUALLY pro owners, but after doing a lot of research on this lockout, I think I'm with the players on this one.  It's more akin to a boss telling you to take a paycut because they have other business expenses to pay, and you asking to see the books to prove this, and the boss not allowing it. 

Under labor law, if the employer claims he needs to cut salaries because he can't afford to pay what he's currently paying, he is obligated to show the books to the union.  The NFL owners have gotten around this by saying "oh, it's not that we can't AFFORD it, it's just that we have other business expenses to pay, too."  To me, if it quacks like a duck...

The players have some legitimate gripes in this case.  They would be taking, essentially, a paycut and playing more games, without added benefits to retirement clauses.  I would be pretty ticked about that, too!  The owners haven't shown any actual proof that they need more money to operate, which is why them not opening the books is a huge deal.

2011-03-16 2:46 PM
in reply to: #3400685

Extreme Veteran
340
10010010025
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

@Soccer GK

Just a couple of points:

The 18 game schedule does not even matter at this point, as the owners say they will drop it unless the players want to revisit it down the line.

Also, from what the owners put out to the press last Friday they were offering dramatic increases in health care and alumni/retired player benefits. In fact, most ex players want this deal done so they can take advantage. It's going to be a big rift as more ex players come out in favor of the league and against the players stance.

Re: Labor laws/unions you mention. I don't understand. The players are asking for 10 years of independently audited financials for each team. This is not owed to them in any way under any law. All one has to do is look at average player salary over the last decade. It's spiraling out of control, especially for top draft picks.

Also, the player union decertified...so it's kind of hard to play the union card/rights here no? It's incredible that with a back drop of unions fighting for rights all over the country that the players blew theirs up to try and exploit a technicality in the law.

Now they expect to  be joined arm in arm by working class unions?

I don't think so.

The bottom line here is the players are doing a bad job selling their case, and have already IMO overplayed their hand. They are saying "Let's settle this in court". That is horrible PR and an even worse tactic.

 

2011-03-16 3:07 PM
in reply to: #3400739

User image

Expert
1037
100025
Portland, OR
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
WaitingGuilty - 2011-03-16 2:46 PM

@Soccer GK

Just a couple of points:

The 18 game schedule does not even matter at this point, as the owners say they will drop it unless the players want to revisit it down the line.

Also, from what the owners put out to the press last Friday they were offering dramatic increases in health care and alumni/retired player benefits. In fact, most ex players want this deal done so they can take advantage. It's going to be a big rift as more ex players come out in favor of the league and against the players stance.

Re: Labor laws/unions you mention. I don't understand. The players are asking for 10 years of independently audited financials for each team. This is not owed to them in any way under any law. All one has to do is look at average player salary over the last decade. It's spiraling out of control, especially for top draft picks.

Also, the player union decertified...so it's kind of hard to play the union card/rights here no? It's incredible that with a back drop of unions fighting for rights all over the country that the players blew theirs up to try and exploit a technicality in the law.

Now they expect to  be joined arm in arm by working class unions?

I don't think so.

The bottom line here is the players are doing a bad job selling their case, and have already IMO overplayed their hand. They are saying "Let's settle this in court". That is horrible PR and an even worse tactic.

 

We can agree to disagree, and that's fine by me.

No, nobody is OWED independently audited financials.  But, like I said, under labor laws, if there is a claim of financial hardship, the employer MUST open his books to the union.  This is a fact.  I can't say I blame the players for asking for more thorough analysis though because financials of a business like the NFL are extremely complicated and would need a professional to go over, not just a union rep.  I don't think this is unreasonable at all when being asked to take a substantial paycut!

Yes, the average player salary has increased.  So what?  Don't forget that the owners AGREED in the CBA to increase the salary cap.  These guys are bringing in millions as a pretty unique product.  No players, no product for the NFL owners to sell and make their billions.  The owners don't put their bodies on the line every week.

The union decertified because the labor laws weren't protecting them in the way they were meant to.  By decertifying, they have antitrust law remedies to pursue against the owners that weren't allowable under labor laws while unionized.  That's not a "technicality" as you describe it.  It's a legal fact, and I'm sure you'll find a number of other unions that have taken that route because they don't care what title they have so long as the employees get the rights that they deserve.  If these other unions you speak of thought decertifying would help their case, THEY WOULD.  Trust me.  Most other union employees though ARE for blue collar employees who are (no offense) much more replaceable than an NFL superstar.

No matter who you are, NFL superstar, factory assembly line employee, teacher, anything, you don't want a paycut either.  You especially don't want a paycut so that your boss can have more money.

And I disagree that this is horrible PR for the players.  I think they're a lot more relatable in this instance than other players have been in other sports work stoppages.  They're not demanding more money, they're demanding they keep the money they are currently earning.  Again, the owners agreed to the current (err...former now) CBA.  If they didn't want to deal with repercussions, they shouldn't have agreed to it.

But like I said, I have no problem with disagreeing with anybody about this! 

2011-03-16 3:10 PM
in reply to: #3400685

User image

Master
1367
10001001001002525
Dirt Road
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
SoccerGK - 2011-03-16 3:14 PM

I do totally agree with ALL of your points.  My entire argument is founded on the fact that at least the majority of the NFL players stuck together on this and left the league.  Obviously, if one of two guys go, nobody's going to care too awfully much.  So it's not just switching from Coke to Kroger brand because of one person, it's really switching from Coke to Kroger because Kroger took Coke's product.  If the players did this, they could get paychecks instead of having to give into the owners' demands.

I am USUALLY pro owners, but after doing a lot of research on this lockout, I think I'm with the players on this one.  It's more akin to a boss telling you to take a paycut because they have other business expenses to pay, and you asking to see the books to prove this, and the boss not allowing it. 

Under labor law, if the employer claims he needs to cut salaries because he can't afford to pay what he's currently paying, he is obligated to show the books to the union.  The NFL owners have gotten around this by saying "oh, it's not that we can't AFFORD it, it's just that we have other business expenses to pay, too."  To me, if it quacks like a duck...

The players have some legitimate gripes in this case.  They would be taking, essentially, a paycut and playing more games, without added benefits to retirement clauses.  I would be pretty ticked about that, too!  The owners haven't shown any actual proof that they need more money to operate, which is why them not opening the books is a huge deal.

 

I know nothing about labor unions but from my eyes this seems absurd. I don't see how any employee should have the right to see any employer's books. 



2011-03-16 3:16 PM
in reply to: #3400685

User image

Champion
8540
50002000100050025
the colony texas
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

But the players are not taking a paycut... it's not like their contracts that are already signed are being cut a certain percentage.  They pay is the same as it was.   It's like when the different players keep saying that the owners are asking them to write a billion dollar check.  they players are writing no checks to the owners, It's a great sound bite, but that's all. 

They are asking the NFL for each teams financial info that the NFL doesn't actually have.   They(the NFL and/or Players) would need to ask each owner for that.  The players (IMHO)are just asking for something that they know owners would never do to justify the players/union position.  I'd like to see what info the NFL has given the players as far as finances, and to learn what the players think they will learn from each teams info, which they have never said.  

The NFL and each team are two different entities to an extent.   They are both (owners/players) trying to divide up money that the NFL gets.   that's all, neither group is writing a check to the other or taking money away that's was already under contract.

To me the players are taking more of a image hit,  Asking that the new to be rookies avoid the Draft to show support why they are also looking to limit their first contract by putting in a set wage scale for new draft choices.  I"m surprised a college player hasn't sued the players union, saying that they are not looking out for their best interest,(which was the union function when active)  by negotiated a smaller amount on what they can earn

 

2011-03-16 3:44 PM
in reply to: #3400774

Extreme Veteran
340
10010010025
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

SoccerGK - 2011-03-16 2:07 PM 

But, like I said, under labor laws, if there is a claim of financial hardship, the employer MUST open his books to the union.  This is a fact....

Yes, the average player salary has increased.  So what?  Don't forget that the owners AGREED in the CBA to increase the salary cap... 

The union decertified because the labor laws weren't protecting them in the way they were meant to...

This is awkward for me, as I am usually on the liberal side of most political/labor issues, but I just want to discuss the 3 points you make above and perhaps clarify why they are misguided.

First, the NFL owners are not arguing financial hardship, so the rules that you mention are not applicable and are not fact. The union is not even making this argument under any law. What the NFL owners ARE saying is that player salaries are growing significantly faster and more exponentially than the team's profits. There is a BIG difference between declaring hardship and declaring that you want to labor costs manageable or at least somewhat in line with your overall bottom line.

Next, you say the owners agreed to the CBA. And yes, they did. But so did the players! And the CBA contained a clause where either side could opt out this year. So the owners did because, again, they feel player compensation is out of line with profits. So it's important to understand that the owners are not illegally voiding a contract. They are excersing a right which the players agreed to. Google comments made by players like Kevin Mawae and Kurt Warner and you will see that the players got a great deal in the last CBA.

Last, IMO you are way off to say they decertified because labor laws were not protecting them. What labor laws? They decertified to exploit a loophole ie he owners can't lock out an entity which does not exist. If you look into this you will see that both sides agree it's a sham.

The argument the union will make is that they believe the NFL forfeited their right to call decertification a sham vis-a-vis language in the last CBA. Ironically it appears as though the union miscalculated and the league will retain it's right to use the sham argument to fight the decertification. It's all legalese based on the timing of the decertification and the settlement reached in the last CBA.

I blame both sides, but there are many misconceptions out there and fans should really be the most important thing. I think both sides will find out that if this is not settled soon then they will lose fans and revenue.

2011-03-16 4:32 PM
in reply to: #3400847

User image

Expert
1037
100025
Portland, OR
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?
WaitingGuilty - 2011-03-16 3:44 PM

SoccerGK - 2011-03-16 2:07 PM 

But, like I said, under labor laws, if there is a claim of financial hardship, the employer MUST open his books to the union.  This is a fact....

Yes, the average player salary has increased.  So what?  Don't forget that the owners AGREED in the CBA to increase the salary cap... 

The union decertified because the labor laws weren't protecting them in the way they were meant to...

This is awkward for me, as I am usually on the liberal side of most political/labor issues, but I just want to discuss the 3 points you make above and perhaps clarify why they are misguided.

First, the NFL owners are not arguing financial hardship, so the rules that you mention are not applicable and are not fact. The union is not even making this argument under any law. What the NFL owners ARE saying is that player salaries are growing significantly faster and more exponentially than the team's profits. There is a BIG difference between declaring hardship and declaring that you want to labor costs manageable or at least somewhat in line with your overall bottom line.

Next, you say the owners agreed to the CBA. And yes, they did. But so did the players! And the CBA contained a clause where either side could opt out this year. So the owners did because, again, they feel player compensation is out of line with profits. So it's important to understand that the owners are not illegally voiding a contract. They are excersing a right which the players agreed to. Google comments made by players like Kevin Mawae and Kurt Warner and you will see that the players got a great deal in the last CBA.

Last, IMO you are way off to say they decertified because labor laws were not protecting them. What labor laws? They decertified to exploit a loophole ie he owners can't lock out an entity which does not exist. If you look into this you will see that both sides agree it's a sham.

The argument the union will make is that they believe the NFL forfeited their right to call decertification a sham vis-a-vis language in the last CBA. Ironically it appears as though the union miscalculated and the league will retain it's right to use the sham argument to fight the decertification. It's all legalese based on the timing of the decertification and the settlement reached in the last CBA.

I blame both sides, but there are many misconceptions out there and fans should really be the most important thing. I think both sides will find out that if this is not settled soon then they will lose fans and revenue.

Please don't call my OPINIONS misguided or "misconceptions."  It is very offensive to me.  I have done a lot of research on this topic, and I am entitled to my opinions, as are you.  I know the laws very well, and what you call a "loophole," is indeed a legal remedy applicable to all unions if they choose to take that route.  It's not exploiting, it's using what remedies the law offers in a legal manner, because it also opens the players up to antitrust claims from the owners as well.  I know VERY well that the players got a good CBA this last time, but the owners should not have agreed to it then, and this whole situation would be totally different.  They can't blame the players for something they agreed to, and I know it's not illegal to opt out of a CBA, so I get that.  And yes, the players would be receiving less pay because they would be receiving a smaller percentage of the TOTAL revenue the team makes.  Every $1 billion taken off the top obviously means less money the players can make. 

You have not proven any of my opinions wrong, you have simply stated a different way of looking at the issues at hand.

So I'm leaving it at that. 

2011-03-16 4:36 PM
in reply to: #3400197

Extreme Veteran
340
10010010025
Subject: RE: No NFL lockout thread?

Yikes...no offense intended.

I'll take you up on that "Agree to disagree" idea now.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » No NFL lockout thread? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2