- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 30,994
- Reaction score
- 15,552
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe we should boycott the 1st game, if and when they get a CBA..
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.
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.
Because it wasn't all stick, no carrot.
What that agreement does is say that "OK, you still have to pay up front, but if we don't have a product to give you, then you get those weeks back for free at the end of the contract."
Free?
And the players don't get paid?
The owners pocket the money during the lockout year?
Funny how that works.
I thought the owners pledged to share revenue with the players.
This is why the NFL lost the court case.
OK. But I don't think ego is motiviating either side.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.
Come to think of it, I don't know exactly how the accounting works (I've never had a desire to wade into that section of the CBA, which might be the best sleep aid known to man), but if that is how it works, then, yeah, it's fairly obvious that's why they lost that case.