Matt Light comments on recent events

[Ring 6]

Wow. You have some seriously strange ideas about what goes on in mediated labor negotiations. Just truly bizarre.

It's not like debate club, or some abstract logic game with all sorts of arbitrary regulations and restrictions about what you can and can't ask the other team. It's a real-world labor negotiation, with a mediator present to facilitate constructive communication and ensure that both sides negotiate in good faith, and the two parties aren't adversaries - they're colleagues, and the goal of the negotiations is as mutually beneficial a compromise as possible.

Wherever you read that, it is not what happened in this case.

Every point of contention is discussed in depth. Every position is explained.

If you think this happened you were not paying attention.

The point of mediated negotiation is to enhance communication between the sides. Many arguments are made by both sides justifying their view of why something should be handled a certain way. You don't go into a negotiation session and say "we want X additional percent from the last contract, but we're not saying why." The idea of one side refusing to make clear its needs is just absurd, and would most certainly qualify as 'bad faith.'

The backed it up very clearly. The percentage under the old contract was not feasible for them because it did not produce an acceptable level of profit. What they set their level of profit at is not up for debate. The terms of the CBA are, the underliying profit expectation is not.

You can't go into negotiations and refuse to negotiate, and refusing to go into the details of why a certain concession is necessary is refusing to negotiate.

They did not do that. They negotiatied, they made offers. They have every right to use 'we need a higher profit level' as justification.

The discussion of what needs would be met by a certain concession enables the other side to come back with an offer that meets those needs but through a different channel. It's this back and forth communication that differentiates negotiations from plain old haggling.

The negotiation is across many different issues, and revenue split is one. The owners may well make a concession on another issue to gain one on revenue. In any event, it is ridiculous to say the negotiation is about debating what level of profit owners should find acceptable.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that you just go in and demand whatever you want without any attempt to ground it in the economic reality both sides are living in. I'm sure it never even occurred to the owners or Goodell to ask for an increase in the percentage off the top without justifying it vis a vis the franchises profitability.

They do not have to share to basis of that.
Its very simple.
The split between players and owners is REVENUE.
The players feel they can get a better deal by shifting the debate to profit.
The owners feel that would be detrimental to their cause.
Its obvious why they feel that way, apparently though, not to you.

And that's the other place where your argument runs itself into a brick wall -- you keep claiming, contrary to simple fact, that the owners share these absurd notions you have about how negotiations work, and have refused to make the case for the concessions they're asking for, when that's just clearly not what's been happening.

They have stated that profits are not at an acceptable level. You want them to turn the debate to whether the players agree with what an acceptable level, and what they do with their share of the revenues. That would be moronic of them.

The league has been making the case for the concessions they're asking for from the very start. They have not been shy about it. You're the only one standing up for this strange negotiating principle you've invented.

So why has there not been a debate over what is an acceptable profit level and how the owners spend there share? Umm, because they won't have that debate, which is exactly my point.
You throw out a lot of insulting comments for someone whos own post contradicts his point.
Go ahead and have your last word, because I have no interest in telling you the sky is blue and having you insult me in a lengthy post telling me it is orange.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, if you ignore what they've said, and you just take a wild guess at what's in their hearts and buy one unnamed source, you can come to the conclusion you have, which was that the players had made it "perfectly clear" that the NFLPA has no interest in negotiating.

Pointing out that multiple members of the NFLPA have stated a willingness to to talk is not "sport", however. It's bringing out valid information that runs counter to your theory.

Also, I don't believe I've mocked you at all in this thread.

Perhaps the letter they all signed saying deal with the court case we are no loner collectively bargaining is more 'perfectly clear' than Mike Vrabel saying lets negotiate, even though we are not an organized group any more.

 

[lamafist]

Wherever you read that, it is not what happened in this case.


If you think this happened you were not paying attention.


The backed it up very clearly. The percentage under the old contract was not feasible for them because it did not produce an acceptable level of profit. What they set their level of profit at is not up for debate. The terms of the CBA are, the underliying profit expectation is not.


They did not do that. They negotiatied, they made offers. They have every right to use 'we need a higher profit level' as justification.


The negotiation is across many different issues, and revenue split is one. The owners may well make a concession on another issue to gain one on revenue. In any event, it is ridiculous to say the negotiation is about debating what level of profit owners should find acceptable.


They do not have to share to basis of that.
Its very simple.
The split between players and owners is REVENUE.
The players feel they can get a better deal by shifting the debate to profit.
The owners feel that would be detrimental to their cause.
Its obvious why they feel that way, apparently though, not to you.


They have stated that profits are not at an acceptable level. You want them to turn the debate to whether the players agree with what an acceptable level, and what they do with their share of the revenues. That would be moronic of them.


So why has there not been a debate over what is an acceptable profit level and how the owners spend there share? Umm, because they won't have that debate, which is exactly my point.
You throw out a lot of insulting comments for someone whos own post contradicts his point.
Go ahead and have your last word, because I have no interest in telling you the sky is blue and having you insult me in a lengthy post telling me it is orange.

From the start, the case that Goodell and the league negotiators were making, on behalf of the owners is that some teams were not sufficiently profitable to be able to afford the expenditures of reinvesting in franchise growth.

The league has never even tried claimed the prerogative to unilaterally set what it considers acceptable levels of profit. In fact, net profitability was the one bit of financial data from each club that the NFL was prepared to share with the NFLPA.

So the acceptable profit numbers aren't even what the NFL is refusing to show; it's how the francises ended up with these levels of profit that they're refusing to detail. There never has been any conflict over what the league's idea of acceptable profit is; the conflict is over the NFLPA having questions about how the NFL could be as insufficiently profitable as they are given all the money off the top they've already been given.

 

[Deus Irae]

You've consistently stated - and disputed anyone who would contend otherwise - that the NFLPA simply want to continue to talk and negotiate.

I've consistently stated that the what the NFLPA says and does are two very different things.

Apparently you have a very difficult time accepting that, because you keep going back to the statements of the NFLPA, choosing to ignore their actions (or lack thereof).

This is incorrect, as a read of the thread conclusively demonstrates. However, since you can't seem to keep the facts straight in just a 2 page thread, I'll consider this conversation over.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Perhaps the letter they all signed saying deal with the court case we are no loner collectively bargaining is more 'perfectly clear' than Mike Vrabel saying lets negotiate, even though we are not an organized group any more.

A perfect example of the of many mixed messages sent by the NFLPA* as noted by Florio

I'm ready to see some actual talking - rather than just talking about talking

 

[Ring 6]

A perfect example of the of many mixed messages sent by the NFLPA* as noted by Florio

I'm ready to see some actual talking - rather than just talking about talking

Well you will be waiting.
We are at an impasse.

The owners essentially have said they do not want to run a football operation if they do not get a larger share of revenues.
The players have said they will not accept a lower share.
The owners said they will lock out unionized players because they do not have a CBA.
The players ended any possibility of negotiating a CBA by decertifying.
Both sides are truly content that this will be fought in court, and both sides are intent on not letting the fanbase know that.
About 5% of what is coming from either side is legitimate, and all of the rest is posturing.

Both sides do not care about the fans more than their own self-interest (nor should they).
Both sides believe that the court will give a ruling that both sides would find worse than a collectively bargined agreement, and will use that court ruling to show the other side why they are asking too much.

In the end, they will be back at the negotiating table, because that is in both sides best interest, and they will work out thier differences.
Both sides are equally to blame. Both sides are doing what is in their own self-interest with no concern to compromise, or meet in the middle, and both sides are spinning the truth to sway public sentiment their way.


I don't know how there is any dispute of these facts.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Well, at the very least Florio seems to share my concerns about litigation and the lawyers (and of course, he's a lawyer himself so he should know best.)

The first task, as men like Robert Kraft and Mike Vrabel and most recently Fran Tarkenton have pointed out, is to find a way to get the lawyers out of the process. Lawyers have a way of mesmerizing their clients into adopting strategies that, coincidentally, result in the lawyers milking the cow until dust comes out.

Not to mention my suggestion that I was surprised to find was something so controversial. Offering a counter offer to the NFL's offer.

The players weren’t happy that the league’s proposal omitted that term. The league believes the term is negotiable, and that the players should respond with a counter.

They should.

League, union must somehow find a win-win | ProFootballTalk

Are these really such extreme suggestions?

 

[E Belichick Unum]

This is kind of like the owners accusing the players of spending their money frivolously and not saving it, then going bankrupt, and then coming back to the owners and saying they don't get paid enough. The only difference is that the shoe is on the other foot.

While all of it is true, it doesn't change a thing about this negotiation. Bottom line is it's a business negotiation between 2 very high-powered groups. And the only thing that matters is how much they can squeeze out of the opposing group, what leverage they can apply to do it, and how long they can stay contentious until the business end dictates they get a deal done.

This whole discussion is beginning to piss me off, again.

1) Light's complaint that Bob Kraft wasn't in the meetings is a joke. Bob Kraft is the owner of the team, he invested his money to buy the team. The fact that he had enough money to invest in the first place means that he has other things to do on a Wed afternoon than going to a meeting to listen to the employees of one of his companies b!tch at him.

2) D Smith had no intention of ever settling this without going to court. His reasoning is that the players will get a better deal from the courts than they will from negotiating with the owners. From his standpoint this is a win/win. He looks like he knows what he is doing, he builds his liberal credentials, he sets the stage for a run at public office and screws a bunch of rich owners. The only people who are going to lose in this scenario are the players he is supposed to represent.

3) The players are screwed. The owners have the resources to keep this in the courts for the whole season if necessary, the players will cave once they start missing paycheck. The owners know this, as do the players. The players are no worse off today than they were in Feb than they will be in Aug, but come the week of Sept 25 when paychecks are supposed to come out, the players will be in full panic mode. Most of these guys are kids, living beyond their means. They count on that big payout every other week (I think they get paid twice a month), once they miss a paycheck or two it will be a mad rush to cross over and become scab labor.

4) Judge Doty, the unions savior, has been somewhat minimized so far, and to his credit, he has remained quiet about the whole TV contract issue. I am sure he will become a player again at some point, but the longer he stays out of the process the quicker the CBA will be resolved. I am sure that he is an honest and dedicated judge, but his supposed favoritism for the union does nothing to solve this issue. The union feels that he has their back and the owners feel that he is against them. The owners can afford to pursue the apeals process into the extended future, the players cannot and counting on Judge Doty to even the score for them will eventually fail.

5) Worst deal in the hstory of sports? Does anybody remember the final outcome of the USFL? That was the worst deal in the history of sports.

There is so much money to be spread around that I cannot believe it won't happen. The players are beeing greedy, the owners are being greedy. The owners are called "owners" because they own the teams. They invest their money and assume all risk and uncertainty. The players are employees, yet they seem to believe that the owners owe them something, as if a salary of $350K coming out of college isn't enough. I know, three year careers, but so what? I graduated college, got $25K and laid off in two years. Am I supposed to feel bad for these guys? They go to college, all of them for free. They are wined and dined and recruited by the colleges and then the pros, get paid huge salaries and then complain that their football careers are too short? Isn't that why they go to school, to learn a trade? I have a son, graduated from a major university, he is working part time selling electronics at Sears, he can't find a career. So I don't want to hear about how short their careers are. I have some advice for them, after your careers are over, after you have earned more money in your three year career than most people will earn in 20 years, put your college education to work and start a new career. That is how real people do it.

I am sick of both sides, but there is too much money on the table for this not to be settled.

 

[ivanvamp]

The players are employees, yet they seem to believe that the owners owe them something, as if a salary of $350K coming out of college isn't enough. I know, three year careers, but so what? I graduated college, got $25K and laid off in two years. Am I supposed to feel bad for these guys? They go to college, all of them for free. They are wined and dined and recruited by the colleges and then the pros, get paid huge salaries and then complain that their football careers are too short? Isn't that why they go to school, to learn a trade? I have a son, graduated from a major university, he is working part time selling electronics at Sears, he can't find a career. So I don't want to hear about how short their careers are. I have some advice for them, after your careers are over, after you have earned more money in your three year career than most people will earn in 20 years, put your college education to work and start a new career. That is how real people do it.

I am sick of both sides, but there is too much money on the table for this not to be settled.

I have no problem with the players seeking as much as they can, or with the owners seeking as much as they can. Seems like a normal owner/labor situation.

I do agree with the sentiment here. I have a nice life, making about $50k a year. I could make more in a different field, but like what I do (non profit) and am content. So no complaints. That said, a rookie pulling in $350 k is seven times what I make in one year. A 3-year career at $350k per year is $1.05 million. It would take me 21 years to earn that kind of money. Again, no complaints, but it isn't like $350k is poverty level. You play from ages 22-25, rake in a million bucks, do a good job managing your money, and then start a new career at age 25 with a million dollars made already. That's a much better head start than 99% of the rest of America at age 25.

Not saying these guys don't deserve it because that's the field they're in. But they need to prepare ahead of time for life after football. That they don't is their own fault.

 

[AzPatsFan]

why should the players give back money so the poorest run franchises earn more? the green bay packers play in the smallest market , won a superbowl and cleared 20 million dollars(the last reported year). why should players pay for the inefficiancies of a few teams. shouldn't the other teams or (heaven forbid) the commissioner lead/help them get more profitable?what kind of socialist place is the nfl that demands all teams make lots of money whether they're well run or not?

The players need to give back to keep all the competitors in business. Two of the small marklet teams said in the last CBA negotiations they doubted they could make do with the settlement back then, and demanded a way to pullout if their fears were proved real. It's not as if Rust belt cities Buffalo and Cinncinatti are growing regions, for example.

Well their fears were real enough that a majority of the owners were convinced and converted and agreed after a couple years of seeing what happened. The last CBA simply gave away too much to the players.

In the very long run, all the current players could be retired and never receive another dime; and the NFL could contract by 4-6 teams. Eventually the remaining owners, even though taking a bath financially, would hire new players and resume operations. Then they would try to rebuild fan interest. I predict it would take a while.

It took the hockey world at least half a decade for fans to get interested again, and many never did. Hockey still needs the contractions and it looks like it is coming for as many as 8 Teams, eventually.

Realistically if it went for most of an an entire season, the strike would collapse; and most players would opt to come back under terms suitable to the owners. The way is clear for an entirely new union to take the place of the current NFLPA, which decertified.