Gag order???

[Ring 6]

Once again, no argument here, the player's will have the choice between a free market system or negotiating a deal with owners that abridges some freedoms in return for a good deal that benefits all.

There is no requirement that it benefits all. In this case, the players would have a huge advantage in negotiating a CBA, which in this example would have been gained by the sham of decertificaiton.

 

[Ring 6]

Disagree on this. I agree that the current systems are probably in the best interest of the league as a whole but I don't see how anyone can say that this is the "only" way the league can operate.

There would be no league without collective bargaining and limited player movement.

If the owners offer a fair deal then i would expect the players to agree to it as they always have, if the owners insist on crushing the players and dictating the terms of the deal, as some here are openly rooting for, then I think the player's should tell them to go pound sand and opt for a free market.

A free market would never work. The Anti-trust exemption exists because you have a unique situation where the competitiveness of the individual teams with each other are the basis for the leagues popularity. With at will employment the league would cease.

This is why the decertification is not a "sham" as the players will have options should they win the case, however if they lose it then they are essentially screwed, however they shouldn't as even those who side with the owners realize the players rights are abridged without a CBA.

The 'sham' argument is based upon the liklihood that the league could not continue without a CBA, on top of the fact that both sides would be worse off for different reasons under an at will employment scenario.
The players do not want the exact thing that they are suing for, ans therefore only decertified in order to be able to sue and hope for a better negotiating position.
They lose nothing if they lose this case.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't agree that it is a "sham" because the player's sacrificed their right to strike by renouncing their union and the players are also at risk to lose the suit, even though they are clearly in the right.

The players have sacrified nothing. They can drop the lawsuit and recertify tomorrow if they wish.
Clearly in the right is your opinion, we will leave it at that.

If they win they will have choices and leverage in making a deal that benefits all or simply going for a free market, so the decertification is very real as it brings high risk and sacrifices union options.

Again, the sham argument is based upon the belief that the players have no intetion of an at will employment arrangement and are only suing in order to get a CBA out of the court.
Your argument was that people are saying the it can't both be a sham and a wish to get at will employment.
I am simply describing the argument and how it can be both. Fighting for at will employment and winning, gives them a bargaining chip as a collective entity, the very basis of the sham argument.

Hopefully they get a deal done in arbitration/mediation, both sides need to be reasonable.

I don't care how they get a deal done as long as they do.

 

[Ring 6]

i.e... you believe it is a "sham" and therefore realize that those trying to say their goal is an unfettered free market are wrong.

I didn't say I believe of disbelieve anything.
I explained the 'sham' argument in response to you saying the goals conflict.
Clearly if they truly intended to demand at will employment decertificaiton is not a sham because they will never recertify. Do you really believe that is what is going to happen?

 

[townes]

There is no requirement that it benefits all. In this case, the players would have a huge advantage in negotiating a CBA, which in this example would have been gained by the sham of decertificaiton.

You're right, there is no requirement they deal fairly, so the players should refuse to deal at all and simply go to a complete free market system. The owners clearly don't need the players so the players should stop acting as if they need to make any deal abridging their freedoms with the owners.

 

[townes]

There would be no league without collective bargaining and limited player movement.

Huh?


I guess the owners do need the players to make a deal then.


You really need to make your mind up, on one hand you say the owners don't have to deal fairly but rather for the most profit they can get, and on the other you say they need the playeers to agree to a deal, when actually the players don't have to do so at all and can simply allow the courts to rule the league in violation of the player's rights.

 

[townes]

I didn't say I believe of disbelieve anything.
I explained the 'sham' argument in response to you saying the goals conflict.
Clearly if they truly intended to demand at will employment decertificaiton is not a sham because they will never recertify. Do you really believe that is what is going to happen?

It's not a sham because they gave up their rights as a union, and the two arguments, one that it is a sham, and the other that they want unfettered free agency are mutually exclusive because it cannot be a sham if their goal is no deal and a victory in court that grants them a free market.

 

[townes]

A free market would never work. The Anti-trust exemption exists because you have a unique situation where the competitiveness of the individual teams with each other are the basis for the leagues popularity. With at will employment the league would cease.

Now you are simply making stuff up. Truth is there is no way to know and the claim you are making is the same one owners made when they opposed free agency for decades and decades.

 

[Ring 6]

Huh?


I guess the owners do need the players to make a deal then.


You really need to make your mind up, on one hand you say the owners don't have to deal fairly but rather for the most profit they can get, and on the other you say they need the playeers to agree to a deal, when actually the players don't have to do so at all and can simply allow the courts to rule the league in violation of the player's rights.

When did I say they don't have to deal fairly? All I have done is argued against your overwhelmingly one-sided view which led to you concluding that Congress should take the teams away from them.
The owners purpose in the negotiation is to get the best deal they can. There is nothing unfair in that.
I never said the players have to agree to a deal. But they would be foolish not to.
Your player tinted glasses are robbing you of an objective outlook.

 

[Ring 6]

Now you are simply making stuff up. Truth is there is no way to know and the claim you are making is the same one owners made when they opposed free agency for decades and decades.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that a professional sports league with totally at will employment would never work.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not a sham because they gave up their rights as a union, and the two arguments, one that it is a sham, and the other that they want unfettered free agency are mutually exclusive because it cannot be a sham if their goal is no deal and a victory in court that grants them a free market.

They TEMPORARILY gave up their rights as a union. Once again, the argument that it is a sham involves the concept that they intend to reorganize.
Once again, striving for an at will system that they know they do not want, but that would give them a bargaining edge is the concept that would make it a sham.
You seem so intent on proving to everyone that the owners are trying to steal the last penny and the players are benevolently trying only to find a fair middle ground now has you arguing that the definition of the sham argument isn't its definition.
Surely you can keep up with this discussion but are just pretending not to.

 

[Ring 6]

Now you are simply making stuff up. Truth is there is no way to know and the claim you are making is the same one owners made when they opposed free agency for decades and decades.

By the way, if anyone thought it could work, why did the NFLPA* turn the White case into a CBA?

 

[townes]

They TEMPORARILY gave up their rights as a union. Once again, the argument that it is a sham involves the concept that they intend to reorganize.
Once again, striving for an at will system that they know they do not want, but that would give them a bargaining edge is the concept that would make it a sham.
You seem so intent on proving to everyone that the owners are trying to steal the last penny and the players are benevolently trying only to find a fair middle ground now has you arguing that the definition of the sham argument isn't its definition.
Surely you can keep up with this discussion but are just pretending not to.

Actually by your logic this would also make the "lockout" a "sham" as the owners would only be using it to force the players into a deal they don't want. Basically you are arguing that the owners have the right to use the tactics available to them but the players don't, and when I made the argument they all had a responsibility to the game you scoffed at it and claimed the owners only responsibility was to their bottom line, yet for some reason you are now claiming the players should reform as a union in the best interests of the game because a free market would ruin it.

At no point do you ever make any argument that the owners need a new agreement other than to say that they want one, and you're right, keeping up with an argument that declares that whatever you say is right is very easy, but going along with it isn't, especially when it has no basis in fact, nor does your claim that the game would end if it were to become a free market. It is simply your supposition and a scare tactic to demonize the players for wanting a fair deal.


The judge apparently agrees with the players that the decertification is no "sham" and said as much to Boies when he claimed it was, then she kept them in court to mediate when the owners tried to say it should go back to the Labor Board because they were still a union. So I am not the only one who disagrees completely with your contention that the decertifcation is a sham, and she has all the facts in front of her, we don't.


At least Matt Light is going to spell out why the owners offer is so bad, no one defending the owners has ever made the argument as to why their previous deal was so bad, they simply say the owners want more and are therefore entitled to it.

 

[townes]

By the way, if anyone thought it could work, why did the NFLPA* turn the White case into a CBA?

The players recognize that having such systems benefit the game but also abridge their freedoms and would rather have a CBA than a complete free market, that doesn't however change the FACT that they are entitled to go without a union and a deal if they should so choose. The owners are the ones who need the union as without it the players will be entitled to the same freedoms all other workers have, and the owners will be in violation of anti-trust statutes.

Your arguments contradict each other, you claim the owners have no obligation to the game but only to their bottom lines, whereas you claim the players must recertify as a union for the best interests of the game despite damage it would do to their bottom line.


The players allowed their victory in the White case to lead to a new CBA and the owners agreed not to claim decertification was a sham as a result of that, now the owners renege on that agreement, given which the players should no longer trust anything they agree to and simply go for it in the courts and gain unfettered free agency with no CBA. It's truly a shame the owners are so greedy, football was good the way it was.

 

[townes]

When did I say they don't have to deal fairly? All I have done is argued against your overwhelmingly one-sided view which led to you concluding that Congress should take the teams away from them.
The owners purpose in the negotiation is to get the best deal they can. There is nothing unfair in that.
I never said the players have to agree to a deal. But they would be foolish not to.
Your player tinted glasses are robbing you of an objective outlook.

Actually I said that such action was probably both illegal and unlikely, however I would love for fans to own the game instead of billionaire families.

 

[townes]

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that a professional sports league with totally at will employment would never work.

That's a statement, not an argument. let us know when you have one.


So far you say the owners deserve a new deal because they want one, and that players can't have a free market because it would never work, but at no point do you ever make any argument as to why. Your argument is simply because you say it then it must be so. Really really weak.

 

[townes]

By the way, if anyone thought it could work, why did the NFLPA* turn the White case into a CBA?

The owners insisted that the union recertify or they could opt out of the deal in 30 days, in agreeing they also agreed they could no longer call decertifcation a sham. So it is clear that it is the owners who needed a union to deal with and they are now reneging on the agreement they made when they insisted the player's reform their union.



From PFT and Florio, who reviewed the case finding:


While trudging through the 52-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota by a group of players including three quarterbacks who have won five Super Bowls among them, I had to press pause at page 19 and share with PFT Planet language that, if accurate, prevents the NFL from arguing that the decertification of the union was a “sham.”

If the NFL were to prove that the decertification was a “sham,” the league would be able to lock the players out, since the antitrust laws would not apply.

Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league “insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days.” To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, “if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration,” the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was “a sham or otherwise ineffective.”

In other words, if the players’ allegations are accurate, the NFL can’t use the “sham” silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players’ lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we’ll have football in 2011.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually by your logic this would also make the "lockout" a "sham" as the owners would only be using it to force the players into a deal they don't want.

That isnt even close to the same thing.

Basically you are arguing that the owners have the right to use the tactics available to them but the players don't,

No, I am explaining what the argument of the sham of decertifying is.

and when I made the argument they all had a responsibility to the game you scoffed at it and claimed the owners only responsibility was to their bottom line,

No, the owners primary concern, the reason they exist as an ownership entity is to maximize profit.

yet for some reason you are now claiming the players should reform as a union in the best interests of the game because a free market would ruin it.

Where have I said anything remotely close to that.
I explained the circumstances of the sham argument. The idea that at will employment wouldn't work was part of the argument as to why it seems clear they will reorganize.

At no point do you ever make any argument that the owners need a new agreement other than to say that they want one,

That is their right, the negotiated an opt out with no restriction.

and you're right, keeping up with an argument that declares that whatever you say is right is very easy, but going along with it isn't, especially when it has no basis in fact, nor does your claim that the game would end if it were to become a free market. It is simply your supposition and a scare tactic to demonize the players for wanting a fair deal.

AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING AND HAVE REPEATED I was explaining the sham argument. Whether the league could survive under at will employment is my opinion, but is irrelevant to the discussion, other than to illustrate to you a reason why the union could be pursuing that, but still intend to reorganize.

The judge apparently agrees with the players that the decertification is no "sham" and said as much to Boies when he claimed it was, then she kept them in court to mediate when the owners tried to say it should go back to the Labor Board because they were still a union. So I am not the only one who disagrees completely with your contention that the decertifcation is a sham, and she has all the facts in front of her, we don't.

The judge has not ruled. It is equally likely that the reason she sent them to mediation is that she is going to rule that decertification is a sham, otherwise how could they be negotiating a CBA?

At least Matt Light is going to spell out why the owners offer is so bad, no one defending the owners has ever made the argument as to why their previous deal was so bad, they simply say the owners want more and are therefore entitled to it.

Why do you insist on thinking that your opinion of what is a good deal for the owners matters at all? It is a negotiation. Both sides have a goal. Matt Light may choose to make his public. That doesn't make him more right.
Your argument is now that the owners must be wrong because they haven't explained their reasoning in negotiating a 9 Billion dollar business deal to you?

 

[Ring 6]

That's a statement, not an argument. let us know when you have one.

I thought common sense was implied.

So far you say the owners deserve a new deal because they want one,

Show me where I said that, or anything close. I said they own the teams, they have the right to negotiate however they choose.

and that players can't have a free market because it would never work,

No, I said they don't really want it because it would not work. They have every right to decertify, to sue to abandon employment under the conditions that have existed, see if the owners choose to still have a league, and take what they get. That is their right. It would be stupid, but it is their right.

but at no point do you ever make any argument as to why.

Why would I make an argument about points that you made up and attributed to me?

Your argument is simply because you say it then it must be so. Really really weak.

First, I wasn't arguing, I was explaining the basis of the sham argument.
Second, I have explained each and every point in detail.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Classic case of "Get A Room" in this thread