ctpatsfan77

So as not to sway the vote, I'll leave the question without comment.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

IllegalContact

They're all selfish pigs

AndyJohnson

I don't know enough of the details to truly analyze who is more to blame.
It seems they are both acting in their own self-interest, using every tool at their disposal to getthe best of the negotiation.
As much as the result seems sucky for fans, that is really what both sides are supposed to be doing.

Mike the Brit

That's the point. It's in the best interest of both sides that there should be a deal. Holding on for a BETTER deal from one's own point of view until there's no deal at all is not in your self-interest. (This is a mistake that Mr Kraft does NOT seem to make.)

My impression is that each side has delegated things to their "negotiators" who lack the authority and big-heartedness to do a deal. Yes, f*** them both.

__________________
My prized possessions: Our family pictures; my dad and me getting doused by Bruschi in Super Bowl XXXIX [Shalize Manza Young Up Close with ... Bill Belichick]


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Well, Pats fans should be invincible by now. [Fitzy, 16 November 2009]

Still here to learn

AndyJohnson

See, I think both sides see no deal as increasing their bargaining power.
The union thinks decertification will screw the owners, and the owners appear to think dealing with this union is not their best course of action.
I think the time to take the deal on the table instead of no deal at all is very far away in their viewpoint.
Don't know where you get that characterization of Kraft, he and BB have allowed many players to walk because they wouldn't bend.

Mike the Brit

Well, I think a deal of some sort is in the interests of both sides. If you're right (you may be) about what they think then I think they are both misguided (to put it mildly).

I don't think that Mr Kraft is perfect, but, from what I can gather, he isn't one of those people who lets his ego and the idea that he has to be SEEN to get the best of a deal get in the way of actually making a deal. I tend to think that the players who have walked have walked because their agents insisted on "top dollar" and BB and Kraft wouldn't do that. That's not unreasonable, in my view.

__________________
My prized possessions: Our family pictures; my dad and me getting doused by Bruschi in Super Bowl XXXIX [Shalize Manza Young Up Close with ... Bill Belichick]


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Well, Pats fans should be invincible by now. [Fitzy, 16 November 2009]

Still here to learn

zipster9

Both sides are greedy. Who makes more? Probably the owners.

60:40 (ownerslayers)


Maybe we should boycott the 1st game, if and when they get a CBA..

Dufflebagz

No thanks.....

__________________
McCourty has to earn his way back into my sig
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

rjw

I blame both. They both say they want a deal and want to play football. Whatever

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Matt Damon shame on youuu!"

upstater1

I simply can't understand how the owners got the networks to agree to give them $4 billion for NOT playing. Seems to me that was money tucked into the contract that should have been in the yearly average. Can't understand how the networks agreed to that.

And the lawyers who suggested it should be fired. It's a dishonest ploy that backfired in the NFL's face.

Given the NFL's supplemental distribution fund of $100 million (doled out to the bottom third of the league) I don't think i would be unreasonable for the players to give back $200 million (double the supplemental fund) so that that money gets redistributed. That being said, the NFL would have to somehow assure the players that the pot is indeed at $9 billion and not much much higher. After what the owners pulled with the TV contract, how could you possibly trust them?

So many posters are saying regular business doesn't work this way with the workers making demands. The NFL is not a regular business. Bosses do not antagonize their best earners...they try to give them reason to stay.

In this case, the NFL's TV contract constitutes a bad faith ploy that they will be hard-pressed to reverse. The only way to do it is to show the players that they don't have other tricks up their sleeves.