Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by ctpatsfan77, Mar 11, 2011.
So as not to sway the vote, I'll leave the question without comment.
They're all selfish pigs
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.
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.
Both sides are greedy. Who makes more? Probably the owners.
Maybe we should boycott the 1st game, if and when they get a CBA..
I blame both. They both say they want a deal and want to play football. Whatever :blahblah:
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.
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."
Professional sports is completely different from most professions. The workers in the NFL are the product, there is nothing else that the NFL sells besides its players which is why they share so much in the revenue. In most businesses there are an almost infinite amount of workers available who could fill the same roll but in the NFL these are the top athletes in the world. The reason we all watch is the reason they get paid so much, because they are the best in the world and there are no replacements. If replacements were available who were just as good then the CFL, UFL, and XFL would have been just as popular as the NFL.
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.
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.
OK. But I don't think ego is motiviating either side.
I think both sides feel they can get a better deal than was the other offerend (and that would be true with many, many options that lie in between) and see no need to cave in for less than they feel they will ultimately get.
Remember, we were led to believe that this was a critical no turning back deadline. It was, but that was just until the next act began. There is plenty of time to get this done without losing a game, and there are many different means to do so. We just moved into round 2. Missing games is more likely only because 1 chance to prevent it passed. I am certain neither side believes the season is in jeopardy because of this, and wont until a lot more time passes and problems happen.
In reality both are at fault, they can't have a deal without an agreement from both sides. Make no mistake tho, we didn't get a deal done for a new CBA because of the NFLPA at least prior this 2 week.
Now prior this 2 Weeks, the owners had the leverage because of the 9 billion dollars from the TV's contract. Now after judge David Doty (he is heavily biased toward the NLFPA and the Players, and please remember this guy) decided that the owners cannot use that money,now the leverage shifted. That was the reason why we had a few progression starting to happen during these 2 weeks.
Now both party here are being greedy, but today the NFLPA went to super greedy mode and REFUSED any offers because they knew that they could get a better offer toward the court system because all the ruling making of the NFL will be presented by none other than (ex)NFLPA best friend's Judge David Doty, otherwise i am almost certain that the decertification would not happened. The guy that made the owners try to make a deal, gave the NFLPA so much more leverage that it was as if that they now hold those 9 billions dollars.
Let's be real here, i don't know what the offer towards the money percentage was but we know that the owners would get a higher percentage of that figure. That was their motto all along, to have the team's pie get bigger so that everyone's pies could grow.
Now what the NFLPA wanted all along was to the owners to open their books, because that way they don't leave any money at the table, and to be real both parties doesn't want that, because they are to damn greedy.
Today the NFLPA made me believe that they were NEVER willing to accept a deal all along. They were not willing to give up anything since they could gain much more through the court. So today they send everyone a message at 2pm that the decertification was happening instead of working out a deal. Then at 4pm, the head of NFLPA DeMaurice Smith gave the NFL a Ultimatum to give open the books, give all their number during the past 10 years. That was when i got angry, to realize the NFLPA NEVER and i repeat NEVER had the interest of the fans and get a deal done. A ultimatum? The last time i heard that it was in history when Austria gave Serbia a Ultimatum, and you know what happen? World War 1. Now they had one hour to answers to meet their demand, since the NFLPA needed to decertify by 5pm.
Why did the NFLPA wanted the books open? So that their party would get as much money as possible. The NFLPA could have used the Green Bay book as a template, since they books are always open, since they are owned by many people.
Why didn't they do it and ignore it? Because they could've gotten more with the whole figure.
What would have happened if the owners showed the NFLPA the books? History says nothing much about it. Similar situation happened with the NHL and MLB, nothing really helped.
Why decertify would not have happen without David Doty? Because Doty always ruled in favor of the NFLPA/Players. The NFL needs a new CBA to continue to operate effective, and you can't have a CBA without a union. So once this is all solved, a new CBA will be in place and the union(NFLPA) will be back, well officially. So the NFL is issuing a Sham, meaning that the decertification is only a leverage tool against the owners.
i blame the owners, and as of today i cancel direct tv, and will boycott going to a game this year or spending on merchandise ... i wont walk away totally but to have it come to this is ridicoulous... owners are to blame... i dont want to hear about that offer, that offer was to spin the media for the fans to go against the players.. Owners wanted a lock out, want to break the union now its in the courts...
I can guarantee you it doesn't work the way upstater persists in portraying it...
The TV revenues would be paid whether games were played this season or not. That is the kind of savvy business guys who grew this league into a $9B entity would do. The owners were never going to be able to access more than their % of the cut. The players would have to wait until they played to access theirs, be that in 2011 or 2012 when the owners also planned to increase the value of the entire pie from which all %'s flow with the addition of 32 more games to be sold to TV networks (making it easier to make up for lost product without remotely making anyone play for free...).
The only thing the league should be afraid of is a jury trial with upstater impaneled... Of course on the other hand the NFLPA should be afraid of a jury trial if people who get it populate the panel...
Plenty of blame to go around. The owners started the whole mess 2 years ago and D Smith and his NFLPA lawyers were always going to court and never had any intention of negotiating anything.
From some of the comments I've read in this and other threads, makes me wonder how much personal politics influence this type of thing. Not interested in making it a flame war or a political thing, just that there are some serious anti-union comments as well as some owner comments that seem to reflect a bitterness towards capitalism, and how both those types of comments get in the way of objective analysis on the issue.
It's amazing how evenly split the vote is too. 13 blame players, 12 blame owners, 13 blame both. Thank goodness it's not an election or we'd be talking about hanging chads and how much Florida sucks.
Separate names with a comma.