Goodell paints doomsday scenario

[AzPatsFan]

This makes no sense, it was the owners who opted out of the CBA and there is little to no doubt that the players would happily agree to return to the one the owners opted out of that's hardly the position of players looking to kill the league.

The UAW workers denied they were trying to kill the domestic unionized auto makers either, until they did. The Owners are the ones saying that they can't continue to go on as it was, or what you think of a return to "normal". Maybe some of the Players would, but the player's lawyers are out to win in court, and they do NOT have to approach the players for approval, any longer, until there is an agreement to be approved.

Many players want more. No franchising, shorter times to Free Agency. The retired players want more pension money, and more health care. More, more, more, when the owners who pay the bills and write the paychecks, are saying there is no more to be had.

The league's lawyers know that a sports league is indefensible froman antitrust standpoint, in many things it does, such as a draft, restraint of player movement, restraint of any new team entrants, a closed schedule between only teams in the "league", to name only a few. Every phyrric victory in court is merely further strangling the golden goose who lays the golden eggs.

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

What a wonderful piece of propaganda.

I mean, I don't think that he's wrong about the impact of the ruling and from a labor impact stand point, he's spot on. I don't think that a decertified Player's Union is in the best interest of everyone involved, especially the players. After a decade of that system, there will be rumblings to re-certify the union because the post-career cost of living will be unsustainable for probably 80% of former players. But to put the honus on the Player's Union for coming to this position is absolute and indefensible garbage.

From the beginning the owners were looking to screw the players to the wall and when the courts got involved and saw how shady the entire situation was, they came down on them. And rightfully so. This isn't the Union's fault in the least, the owner's have brought this upon themselves.

I remember from the 1st day of negotiations that DeMaurice Smith offered the owners a straight, down the middle, 50-50 split. And the owner's turned it down. They probably should have taken.

 

[Ring 6]

What a wonderful piece of propaganda.

I mean, I don't think that he's wrong about the impact of the ruling and from a labor impact stand point, he's spot on. I don't think that a decertified Player's Union is in the best interest of everyone involved, especially the players. After a decade of that system, there will be rumblings to re-certify the union because the post-career cost of living will be unsustainable for probably 80% of former players. But to put the honus on the Player's Union for coming to this position is absolute and indefensible garbage.

From the beginning the owners were looking to screw the players to the wall and when the courts got involved and saw how shady the entire situation was, they came down on them. And rightfully so. This isn't the Union's fault in the least, the owner's have brought this upon themselves.

I remember from the 1st day of negotiations that DeMaurice Smith offered the owners a straight, down the middle, 50-50 split. And the owner's turned it down. They probably should have taken.

So after opting out of a deal they didn't like, they should have accepted the first proposal from the union, which was a worse split than they had just opted out of?

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

So after opting out of a deal they didn't like, they should have accepted the first proposal from the union, which was a worse split than they had just opted out of?

Yes. It is a very simple case of hindsight being 20-20.

 

[Joker]

What a wonderful piece of propaganda.

yup...Poppa gander, mother goose and a bunch of little goslings...

 

[TruthSeeker]

The scenario that Goodell talk about is, of course, not what the players ultimately want. But it is exactly what they are arguing before the court that they should get. And, as of now, the court agrees with them.

In fact, the players can't really have it both ways. If they admit that this is just a tactic for a better negotiated deal, then they are admitting that this tactic arose out of a labor negotiation and that the judge ruled incorrectly (and increase the chances that the decision will be reversed upon appeal). They have to say (with a straight face?) that this is indeed exactly what they really want. Anything less and they may lose all the leverage they've built up in the courts.

So, perhaps we should take this a bit more seriously. The players are claiming to. If we don't believe them about this, then why should we believe anything they have to say? (Well, I admit that in a labor negotiation I rarely believe what either side says but perhaps that's just me. )

 

[jczxohn1]

What a wonderful piece of propaganda.

I mean, I don't think that he's wrong about the impact of the ruling and from a labor impact stand point, he's spot on. I don't think that a decertified Player's Union is in the best interest of everyone involved, especially the players. After a decade of that system, there will be rumblings to re-certify the union because the post-career cost of living will be unsustainable for probably 80% of former players. But to put the honus on the Player's Union for coming to this position is absolute and indefensible garbage.

From the beginning the owners were looking to screw the players to the wall and when the courts got involved and saw how shady the entire situation was, they came down on them. And rightfully so. This isn't the Union's fault in the least, the owner's have brought this upon themselves.

I remember from the 1st day of negotiations that DeMaurice Smith offered the owners a straight, down the middle, 50-50 split. And the owner's turned it down. They probably should have taken.

But wasn't this a 50-50 split after ancillary sources of income such as Patriot Place (certainly what player rep Mike Vrabel wanted) were included and after owners were audited by the NFLPA bean counters?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'm really angry right now. I've watched these unions destroy every sport they touch, I've stopped watching every sport except football because of this BS. Football is all I watch now, and that will end if there isn't a deal that gives stability in player movement.

Stronger free agency means they negotiate contracts, but there's no law that they all have to be 1-year deals. In fact, if you're a player, one strategy would be to try to get a career-long contract (say, 7 years after you're already tried and true,) maximizing your perceived present value rather than rolling the dice on the "out years." A Brady or Manning doesn't want people evaluating them in 3 or 4 years from now and deciding what their present value is. They want to be evaluated now with hope and good intentions playing bigger parts.

You don't write a new contract with a 37 or 38 year old to reward what he used to be. Seems to me you'll have less league control at the outset, but the vets will want more certainty.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I also don't get how the sport would be destroyed in the way you describe...

Sure, Randy wouldn't be a Viking for life, and Wes wouldn't be a Dolphin for life... but somehow it doesn't seem that changes things that significantly.