ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Goodell on the front page at ESPN looks like he's gained a lot of weight. In fact, he looks like the principal in Ferris Bueller now!
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
A 24 hour extension is probably an indication that what's really being considered is a longer extension. You don't take a 24 hour extension to do a deal. It won't get done in 24 hours.
You take a 24 hour extension, because something new is on the table, and one side says, "let's take a look at this and decide whether this constitutes the kind of movement we need to keep negotiating."
As a fan, do you really wan an "unmovable" deadline? What I want as a fan is a deal. I'll sacrifice uncertainty for a better chance at a deal. If the uncertainty is too much for a person, get your doctor to give you xanax. This extension is good news. Hopefully, tomorrow, we'll hear there's a longer extension, because that would be a sign that whatever movement happened today is worth talking about.
I know a deal probably won't get done in 24 hours. But I don't see the point in announcing a 24 hour extension just to have a longer extension the next day. Why not just come out with the longer extension?
Yes, I really do want an unmovable deadline. I think a hard deadline puts more pressure on both sides to get a deal done quicker. I also said that this hard deadline should be within reason and with sufficient time.
Good points nonetheless.
Last edited by andrewgarrr; 03-03-2011 at 09:27 PM..
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Cohen has persuaded the union to agree to a 7-to-10-day extension. Now, the league needs to consent to a pushing of the deadline back by a week or more.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Yes, I really do want an unmovable deadline. I think a hard deadline puts more pressure on both sides to get a deal done quicker.
Probably true. I think for all intents and purposes the expiration of the CBA is pretty close to an unmovable deadline. I think we probably came about 2 hours today from decertification and lawsuit, which I think puts games in serious jeopardy and possibly the entire season. I hope that whatever caused the extension today will compel the parties to do a longer extension tomorrow. If it does, I think that extension will likely be it -- either they'll get it done (or close enough) or they won't. I don't think they are going to agree to a 2-week extension tomorrow and then 2 weeks from now agree to another extension, unless they are close to agreement and just need the time to document everything. So, I think this is close to end game, one way or the other.
I bet Vonnie is the one who is off the reservation and is just speaking the truth. In any negotiation like this, you are told to give optimistic apprisals to the media, so that when the negotiation falls apart, you seem like the optimistic and compromising party, while the party across from you is a stone-walling pessimistic curmudgeon.
Optimism is always the best negotiation attitude even if you refuse to budge an inch.
It's also not uncommon within an organization to get a different opinion on how things are going depending on who you ask. At my company for example, depending on who you ask, we're either about to make a big splash and we're the future of our industry, or we'd be lucky to stay afloat by the end of the month. Chances are the truth is in the middle, but there's always vocal members at each extreme.
1. Would you as an owner trust Goodell's unsupervised judgement with your franchise's value? I would not.
2. It's a negotiating tactic to have your guy at the table have to go back to get an OK on some issues. Buys time to react to new developments.
__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH
I think it's understandable the owners are still a bit leery of Goddell -- he's only been through this war once with them.
I would think, though, between Goddell and Pash there's more authority in the room than this article suggests. Pash has been through the wars, working with Tagliabue before he was even in the NFL, and then as the NFL's chief outside lawyer after that. He's pretty well known to the owners.
I said it in my other thread about decertification possibly backfiring on the union. I believe the owners want the union to decertify. I believe that the owners are in the best position they've ever been in to win litigation against the players. Particularly when the one public set of books around shows that the Packers had less than a 10% profit margin. The owners don't really have a whole helluva lot more to give.
Just something to think about.
There are approximately 1500 players in the union. Their split is currently 4.76 billion dollars. At the Salary Cap floor (85%?) I believe that is a little over 4 billion. 4 Billion divided by 1500 is 2.66 million dollars, on average.
I don't think that the Union lawyers are going to be able to find a lot of sympathetic people to listen to how "hard" the players have it when they are averaging 2.66 million dollars in this time of recession. And I don't believe that there are going to be a lot of people who are sympathetic to the players when it comes to health care and pensions. Especially when the 2.66 million average gets taken into consideration.
I said it in my other thread about decertification possibly backfiring on the union. I believe the owners want the union to decertify. I believe that the owners are in the best position they've ever been in to win litigation against the players. Particularly when the one public set of books around shows that the Packers had less than a 10% profit margin. The owners don't really have a whole helluva lot more to give.
I understand that you feel pretty strongly that the players are the problem here, and you're pretty vocal about that. I wouldn't try to bounce you off that opinion, and you're entitled to it. These are fairly contentious subjects, and people feel strongly about them, and that's all reasonable.
But I do think you're seriously mistaken both about the league wanting decertification and about the NFL's ability to win a lawsuit. You seem to think a lawsuit would turn on how profitable or not profitable the teams are for the owners. That has nothing to do with it. A lawsuit would not be about what is fair for either side. It would about about whether the NFL, as currently constructed, violates antitrust laws.
It does. The NFL winning an antitrust lawsuit, if it came to it, would be an upset the equivalent of a high school team beating the Packers. The only real arguments the NFL has are technical statutory arguments. One of the most significant -- and one they apparently thought could save things -- was rejected by the Supreme Court 9-0 last year in the American Needle case. (The NFL argued that, essentially, it was a unitary organizaion with 32 divisions, so the teams weren't really "combining" within the means of the antitrust law. The court said, basically, "no freaking way.")
I think what you're really saying is that in the court of public opinion the players will not do well if this thing drags out. Maybe. Maybe not. It's very different, though, from predictions about the lawsuit, which the NFL can't win.
Last edited by PatsFaninAZ; 03-04-2011 at 01:03 PM..
Re: Extension for labor talks
Linear Mode
