Report: NFL owners refuse to meet with players' attorneys - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 04-04-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEVIOUS 1

Soooooooo, don't believe the propaganda of the owners, only believe the propaganda of the players, because thats the side your backing? Ok, got it!

Actually, I didn't say anything of the kind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEVIOUS 1

I'm with Robo. There is an equal share to this blame pie, but plenty of opinion to paint one side as the villain, and the other side as the hero. Spare me.

Both sides are dug in to deeply, and are to consumed with a combination of greed/pride to compromise and get anything done.

Both sides have in one way or another, lied or mislead the public in an effort to win a fruitless PR battle.

But the bottom line to me, is that they are all dopes.

Just like the people who try to convince me one side is more wrong then the other. Dopes.

I believe the expression that applies is: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Go back and read "Robo" for his positions on this over time.

It was the owners who dropped out of the previous CBA, the owners who deliberately framed the broadcast contracts to prepare for a lockout and screwing the players in the process, it was the owners demanding huge revenue rollbacks without providing justification, and it was the owners blowing off meetings and negotiations.

You can pretend that there's been equal culpability. You might as well pretend that Superman is real and screwing Lois Lane while they both work at the Daily Planet while you're at it.

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 04-04-2011, 03:06 PM

Superman would never do that!

***Rob0729*** · 04-04-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Actually, I didn't say anything of the kind.

Go back and read "Robo" for his positions on this over time.

It was the owners who dropped out of the previous CBA, the owners who deliberately framed the broadcast contracts to prepare for a lockout and screwing the players in the process, it was the owners demanding huge revenue rollbacks without providing justification, and it was the owners blowing off meetings and negotiations.

You can pretend that there's been equal culpability. You might as well pretend that Superman is real and screwing Lois Lane while they both work at the Daily Planet while you're at it.

My position over time hasn't changed. I have always said both sides are to blame for this. Even when I appeared to be one sided, I have gone back and clarified my original post like the thread I started and morphed into something else. Still believe it. Nothing has changed. I have also said both sides are spinning the truth and neither side can be believed in total.

This is the real world where people aren't black and white. There is a lot of shades of gray and both sides of this issue have been in the right or in the wrong depending on the time and the issue.

To frame this as the players are innocent victims and the owners just greedy is a bogus. To frame this the other way is just as bogus. The reality is that both sides are being stubborn in a lot of cases and are more interested in making the other side look bad than get a resolution. Neither side is interested in making sure the public get the truth. They are interested in making sure the public get their spin on the truth.

I am sure the owners believe they have a legitimate reason for not negotiating with the lawyers and it is very different than what John Clayton's story claims. Just like the players probably have a very different take on why they were pressuring the rookies to avoid the draft which made them look very petty the way it was spun in the press.

As for who ended this process, it was both sides. DeMarcus Smith said either give them the financials they were looking by the end of the day of the last negotiations or the players would decertify. Once the players won the lockout insurance case, they seemed pretty determined to get the CBA situation resolved in court. That said, the owners were planning to use the lockout to sweat the players out. Neither side really wanted to negotiate in good faith.

***Rob0729*** · 04-04-2011, 03:27 PM

The owners deny that they refused to negotiate with the lawyers. So it is a case of "he said, she said" without knowing who it telling the truth. Although the owners probably would have rejected such a meeting if offered considering their statement.

League denies report of refusal to negotiate last week | ProFootballTalk

Let's face it. The players want a ligitation negotiation because the process favors them. If the process favored the owners, the roles would be reversed. It is all PR spin and gamesmanship. The players want to make the negotiation process and final outcome to have the deck stacked in their favor. Same goes for the owners. They will dance until one side gets the advantage and there is no chance for the other side to reclaim the advantage.

jsull87 · 04-04-2011, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

It's a mailbag. Scan to the bottom. It's in Clayton's answer to the last question.

As to the "sham" comment, I'll simply note that a lot of people have confused tactics with purpose (whether you're one of them is something I don't know, since I haven't read enough of your posts on the subject to find out), and leave it at that.

Not really trying to say anything other than if i was negotiating with the NFLPA then they decertified then wanted to attend negotiations as advisers i'd probably have taken the same action. Once again none of us have the full information i guess so it's hard to draw a definitive opinion.

***DaBruinz*** · 04-04-2011, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The players were right to reject that offer. It would have been stupid of them to accept. There's a clear "wrong" in this battle, and it's the owners. Their words and actions have made it clear that they understand this, and they don't care. They are out to "take back" the league by their own admission, not to work out a legitimate compromise.

No, there isn't a clear "WRONG" in this battle. You saying otherwise is just foolish. As it has been since day one.

What you and those players ignore was that the owners were using that as a starting point. Not as the be all end all. They even said so. Yet, instead of actually negotiating, the players said "F U" and decertified.

There were MANY points in that offer that increased iteams to the players. Things that wouldn't come out of the players side of things. Yet, the Players refuse to acknowledge that.

The players have been gorging themselves on the money over the last 18 years to the point of abuse and now, when one side that was hit much harder by the financial crisis (the owners) wants both sides to show some fiscal responsibility, the players are having a tantrum.

***DaBruinz*** · 04-04-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Actually, I didn't say anything of the kind.

Go back and read "Robo" for his positions on this over time.

It was the owners who dropped out of the previous CBA As was their option that the PLAYERS agreed to and that EVERYONE except the village idiot KNEW was going to happen

the owners who deliberately framed the broadcast contracts to prepare for a lockout and screwing the players in the process (More BS propoganda from you. Seems you missed that the Special Master rules in FAVOR of the league before Judge Doty showed his bias against the owners and made all sorts of biased attacks against the Special Master. But that's the sort of thing you ignore because it takes away from your argumanet. ) , it was the owners demanding huge revenue rollbacks without providing justification, and it was the owners blowing off meetings and negotiations. (The owners don't have to provide justification. They are privately owned entities except for the Packers. You seemt to not understand that.

Owners didn't blow off any meetings and negotiations. That is you believing everything coming out of the NFLPA's mouth as if it was the Holy Gospel. )

You can pretend that there's been equal culpability. You might as well pretend that Superman is real and screwing Lois Lane while they both work at the Daily Planet while you're at it.

You're the cheap ***** that the players are selling. You've been doing it from day 1. Unlike you, others like myself realize that BOTH are at fault. And you prove it every single time you post on the subject.

JoeSixPat · 04-04-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

The owners deny that they refused to negotiate with the lawyers. So it is a case of "he said, she said" without knowing who it telling the truth. Although the owners probably would have rejected such a meeting if offered considering their statement.

League denies report of refusal to negotiate last week | ProFootballTalk

Let's face it. The players want a ligitation negotiation because the process favors them. If the process favored the owners, the roles would be reversed. It is all PR spin and gamesmanship. The players want to make the negotiation process and final outcome to have the deck stacked in their favor. Same goes for the owners. They will dance until one side gets the advantage and there is no chance for the other side to reclaim the advantage.

Actually at this point I think BOTH sides believe that there's a good chance they'll prevail in court, and we've simply all been witnessing posturing and re-posturing by each side to show the other one to be the bad guy on "litigation vs. negotiation"

There was, certainly, an opportunity to negotiate a settlement a few weeks ago but at the time the players felt litigation was their best bet. Either they changed their mind about their chances and truly want to negotiate, or this was yet another layer of posturing.

At this point we'll have to see what chess moves are available once we have a court ruling. This has the potential to get dragged out for a very long time.

***AndyJohnson*** · 04-04-2011, 08:35 PM

Just wondering what the argument is that suggests it would be in the owners best interest to have the union decertifiy in order to sue them, then negotiate with the union, and sign a get out of jail free card so that they cannot be considered acting as a union while they are negotiating as one, so that they are still able to sue the owners if they wish.
Is there really someone on the planet who would advise the owners that is smart?

***NEGoldenAge*** · 04-05-2011, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

No, there isn't a clear "WRONG" in this battle. You saying otherwise is just foolish. As it has been since day one.

What you and those players ignore was that the owners were using that as a starting point. Not as the be all end all. They even said so. Yet, instead of actually negotiating, the players said "F U" and decertified.

There were MANY points in that offer that increased iteams to the players. Things that wouldn't come out of the players side of things. Yet, the Players refuse to acknowledge that.

The players have been gorging themselves on the money over the last 18 years to the point of abuse and now, when one side that was hit much harder by the financial crisis (the owners) wants both sides to show some fiscal responsibility, the players are having a tantrum.

Are you serious...... a starting point offered at noon on the last day of an extention?

I have a bridge for sale. Are you interested?