Yes, Andy, it does. When you're tossing out words like "obtuse" towards me in this thread while you're unable to properly explain yourself, and when you've repeatedly gone after my integrity, honesty, etc... in the past, it really does matter.
Isn't it just stupid to go back and forth over whether my wording was unclear or your comprehension poor?
I have never gone after your integrity, or honesty. I have often criticized your attitude and arrogance. I have often assailed you for your approach of debate that includes implying you are a better judge of what the other person intends, believes or meant to say than they are. I have often felt you acting like an @ss while arguing, but I do not believe I ever 'went after' your integrity or honesty, and I go out of my way (often unsuccessfully) to try not to insult.
Frankly, your obsession with picking out insignificant little rhetoric disputes is frustrating as hell. In this case, arguing whether my wording was clear after I have clarified it 5 times, is simply maddening, especially when you STILL havent answered the original question..
I know you consider posting a competition, but sometimes you just ought to back off and state your opinion and allow others to state theirs without all the gradeschool picking and insulting. Just my opinion, although it probably sounded like a lecture.
The point being:
I've responded every time. This has been public knowledge for months, and you've been following football, and this messageboard, during that time. You already know the answer to the 'question'. The owners are claiming that their percentage is insufficient because their expenses are too high and their profits are disappearing.
I guess I just thought you had something better than that.
I cannot see how owners could be expected to do something so drastic and so potentially harmful to their negotiating position just because they gave it as a reason to explain where they draw the line.
It's the right of the players to say they won't agree without seeing the books. Are you really going to pretend you're making anything approaching a valid point here?
You just agreed that I do. If its the players right to ask, its the owners right to say no.
More importantly I have seen no explanation for what purpose turning over the books would serve.
The union didnt say, show us your expenses went up and we will agree to your proposal. Nothing of the kind.
You are making the expenses the lynchpin of the negotiation, and all they are is an explanation for why the owners don't like the current deal.
Absolutely nothing would be accomplished by handing over the books.
If you disagree, what do you think would?
The only result would be that the union would twist the numbers to increase their demands and drive the sides further apart.
By the way. Surely you agree that since the unions threat was a lawsuit challenging the antitrust exemption which they followed through on, it would have been pretty gullible for the NFL to turn them over so the union, ready to sue, could use them against them after going through the motions of negotation through the extension that was bought with them, right?
1.) We already know that the league did not maximize profits on the TV deals. Are you really going to try pulling out that "maximize profits" card now?
Well using part of your profits for insurance is a valid means of attempting to maximize profits.
Its no card, its the purpose of a businesses existence.
2.) The number's not enough for the owners. Fine, they had a chance to justify their stance. They chose not to. Now they'll hash it out in court. The O.P. was claiming that it was not the owners being stubborn. I'd say demanding a 20% pay cut without being willing to justify it is pretty stubborn. You, apparently, don't.
They don't have to justify it. In fact they did justify it, they explained it.
Refuisng to adhere to giving in to whatever the other side asks for is not stubborness it is protecting your negoiating position.
Stubborness implies that there is no real reason to act the way you do other than you just dont want to. Clearly, even you will admit that in an adverserial negotiation between league and union turning over your financial statements will very likely hurt your bargaining position. That is a reason, and when there is a legitimate reason for your actions, you are not simply being stubborn. That has been the point throughout this thread.
Feel free to go tell your boss that he should cut your salary by 20% starting tomorrow.
Now THAT is obtuse. Arent you the one who said it is wrong to use any analody to regular business?
Not to mention it isnt even correct.
If you said feel free to tell your boss that he can cut the percentage of revenue that ALL EMPLOYEES receive because expenses have increased along with revenues, so your pay isnt going up, because we are sharing in the costs so that the company can stay in business, then you would have a fair analogy.
Ironically, in the industry that I am in a similar thing is actually happening right now, and across the board employers and employees are recognizing that sacrifices must be made on both sides for the benefit of everyone.
It's tough to insult the intelligence of someone who's deliberately playing dumb, as you are.
Please explain where I am deliberately playing dumb.
And, no, we're not talking about "whether they have a right to". That's something else that you full well know and are playing the fool about.
It is very much part of the discussion.
You say the owners are wrong, or stubborn because they wont turn them over.
You say they ought to because they said expenses went up.
I say the negotiation has nothing to do with those books, because they are negotiation over revenue and no one disputes the revenue numbers.
If you are holding the owners blameful for the impasse, then you are saying the players had the right to request them, and the justification to expect compliance.
You still havent told me what purpose would be served.
And, by the way, the new CBA would result in a paycut, precisely because it IS a collective bargaining agreement. It would immediately affect new contracts. This is a part of the very first item in the NFL's "summary" of it's final proposal:
This stuff's not hidden. It's right in the press release.
That doesnt say its a paycut.
There is every reason to believe that combined pay to NFL players in 2011 would be higher than 2010 or 2009 under the proposal.
A smaller percentage of revenues is not a paycut, less pay is.
