NFLPA vs NFL in a nutshell

[townes]

Hmm ... fixed that for you. A little.

You can't really use the argument here that this is somehow rich vs poor. It is more like rich vs richer. I think that is why the fight is pretty tedious for everyone observing while we all work our regular jobs for more average pay.

Most players aren't millionaires and most of them sacrifice their long term health to play a game we love watching. My point is that the players are blamed whether they initiate the problem by striking or ownership does by locking them out, and that is just stupid.

 

[Haley]

Most players aren't millionaires and most of them sacrifice their long term health to play a game we love watching. My point is that the players are blamed whether they initiate the problem by striking or ownership does by locking them out, and that is just stupid.

My point is most lines of work don't get paid anything near a pro football salary. And many of these career choices also offer a fine array of health risks. I find it hard to worry about the well-being of pro football athletes when we have coal miners and police officers out there making far less. Additionally, most of the players risking health issues are the better paid starters, not the practice squad.

It is just tedious to me. To watch these guys tangle over small issues when so many minimum wage earning fans could only dream of such a lifestyle. It starts not to matter who is right and who is wrong when the differences are small compared to the lifestyle enjoyed by both sides. I just want them to compromise and hurry up about it.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

My point is most lines of work don't get paid anything near a pro football salary. And many of these career choices also offer a fine array of health risks. I find it hard to worry about the well-being of pro football athletes when we have coal miners and police officers out there making far less. Additionally, most of the players risking health issues are the better paid starters, not the practice squad.

It is just tedious to me. To watch these guys tangle over small issues when so many minimum wage earning fans could only dream of such a lifestyle. It starts not to matter who is right and who is wrong when the differences are small compared to the lifestyle enjoyed by both sides. I just want them to compromise and hurry up about it.

The physical danger police face is actually quite a bit less than many professions. The Most Dangerous Jobs in America - NYTimes.com The real dangers of police work are mental. On a daily basis they deal with nasty people and people at their worst. Responding to domestic abuse cases on a daily basis is not healthy for the psyche.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If the owners wanted to stay out of court they could have agreed to play under 2010 rules while negotiating a deal, they didn't want that and wanted instead to crush the players and dictate deal, and I am sick and tired seeing people lie about who caused this situation and what is going on. If the players strike they are blamed and if the owners lock them out they are blamed, in the eyes of many they are to blame no matter what the situation and it's a bunch of BS.

As far as the lawyers go they should all be fired, not just D. Smith and Kessler. Pash is a scumbag and has led the league down this path and I simply don't get why he skates while Smith and Kessler are rightly vilified.

I have no problem with people looking at this and assigning blame where it belongs, unfortunately many are too poorly informed or too stupid to be able to do that, and when i say that I am specifically referring to the idiots who say they want the players crushed and no football so the owners can wipe the floor with them. I would like nothing better than for those demonizing the players to show up at camp next summer and repeat what they have said here to the faces of the players, but it will never happen because at that point they will be back to worshipping them.

Townes, people disagree with you not necessarily because they are poorly informed or stupid but simply because that see things differently.

Your solution that the NFL continue as is under the rules of the past 4 years is clearly maintaining the status quo while the parties negotiate. Everyone acknowledges that the players, for the most part, are satisfied with the status quo while the owners are not. So the owners want real negotiations to happen to change this.

They've had 2 years to negotiate. Exactly what progress has been made? I think everyone agrees that very little progress has been made. Looking back at a history of contract negotations between owners and unions, this is fairly typical. Concessions only tend to be made when hard and fast deadlines come and then the consequences of not reaching an agreement start to be felt by all parties. So your solution of maintaining the status quo while "negotiations" happen is very likely to result in very little negotiation.

So, if you were an owner that was unhappy with the existing contract, why would you choose to continue under the current circumstances with very little hope of true negotiations happening?

It's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

 

[Rob0729]

Actually robo there isn't much disagreement here and I have said so repeatedly, i think D. Smith is representing the agents interests not the players and the players have to reign in their representation and maintain the structure of the game. What I am pointing at however is the ignorant knee jerk hatred of the players that many here spew. The fact is that the owners could have agreed to play under 2010 rules and continue negotiating but decided they had to have a lockout to crush the players, forcing the players to sue after the owners opted out of the CBA.


Listening to Goodell recently i am really starting to wonder if the owners wanted the players to sue because all of his rhetoric seems to be about ending the lawsuits and I think what he is really talking about isn't this particular action but the overall long term supervision of the league by the courts and that the owners will require that as a condition of any agreement, which, if i am right, is really going to hold up any agreement and the players would be crazy to go along with.

First, the players never agreed to play under the 2010 rules. If the lockout ends tomorrow, there is no guarantee that doesn't set off a next round of petitions for injunctions. There is a good chance that the players would try to get an injuction barring the owners from franchising players and applying restricted free agent tenders.

Second, the only thing the owners have asked for in terms of lawsuits is for players to file workman's comp claims and cases in the states of the team they played for. Right now, most players sue in California because they have most worker friendly worker's comp laws in the U.S. All a player has to do is play one game in California in their career for California to allow them to file suit there. There is no provision in the past CBA on where the players can file suit, but the owners want it in a new CBA.

Third, I don't think that Smith is working for the agents' interest. I think he is working for the players' interest. I think he is just ill-suited for the job he was hired for. From day one, he have trashed the owners and talked about the negotiations as a war. A good negotiator doesn't treat their negotiation partner like the enemy and insult them to the press. You might do that in a civil lawsuit, but not in negotiations. Even if you are agressive in your negotiations, you need to make your opponent want to come to an agreement. Smith has been litigating far too long. Also, I think he sold the players on getting certain things and I think he knew all along his best chance of getting them is winning them in court rather than negotiate for them.

 

[Haley]

The physical danger police face is actually quite a bit less than many professions. The Most Dangerous Jobs in America - NYTimes.com The real dangers of police work are mental. On a daily basis they deal with nasty people and people at their worst. Responding to domestic abuse cases on a daily basis is not healthy for the psyche.

The example of police was simply someone not paid very well for potentially putting their life on the line every time they need to write a simple speeding ticket.

We can just add fishers, loggers, farmers, ranchers, roofers, steel workers, refuse collectors, industrial machinists, drivers, and construction workers to the long list of people putting themselves in danger for work for little pay in return.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Players strike, the players suck. Owners lock the players out, the players suck. Billionaires good, players suck.

As a matter of fact, yes. We have to move past the billionairs/millionairs schtick and look at this situation from a different perspective; owners/employee. The players are very well compensated employees, with a benefit package without comparison. The owners do not begrudge the players their piece of the pie, they just want their profit margine to remain at a certain minimum level. As a union guy you are sure to howl at that resoning, as a guy who works for a living at a competitive wage, I say that business model is what will keep the NFL in business and in place.

The owners are not asking the players to take a pay cut, they are asking the players to a slightly more moderate series of raises. DeMaurice Smith is a turd, he had this planned out from the beginning and when his plans failed to work the way he expected them to work he has decided to ruin the NFL to protect his inflated self worth. The owners are not a whole lot better, but at least the owners want the NFL to continue to function, Smith only wants revenge.

I am rooting for the scrub players to form their own version of the NFLPA* and ask into the party. That might be the only way that Smith will return to the bargaining table.

 

[Shelterdog]

As a matter of fact, yes. We have to move past the billionairs/millionairs schtick and look at this situation from a different perspective; owners/employee. The players are very well compensated employees, with a benefit package without comparison. The owners do not begrudge the players their piece of the pie, they just want their profit margine to remain at a certain minimum level.

Isn't the whole point that the owners don't like the size of the slice of pie the players are getting?

The owners and players are both trying to get as much pie as they can, and the discussion they're having (do the players get 42% of the pie or 51%?) is a straight business negotiation that it's hard for me to get exorcised about one way or another.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Players made a big mistake getting the courts involved. Now it's going to drag on forever and the players will really need to be taught a lesson! See how they like getting nothing for a year or two.

This thing could drag on two years...this year is pretty must toast, I believe.

 

[McCourty Island]

Players made a big mistake getting the courts involved. Now it's going to drag on forever and the players will really need to be taught a lesson! See how they like getting nothing for a year or two.

This thing could drag on two years...this year is pretty must toast, I believe.

If the players didn't get the courts involved the owners were still going to have the lockout so we're at the same point right now with the exception that the courts could help the players at some point.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Most players aren't millionaires and most of them sacrifice their long term health to play a game we love watching. My point is that the players are blamed whether they initiate the problem by striking or ownership does by locking them out, and that is just stupid.

Not when they initiate the problem by striking or by pre-emptively decertifiying which resulted in a lockout. And at least at this location most (as in more than half) of them are millionaires or should be if they haven't squandered their money on bling and other luxuries...

Minimum wage for these guys is $330K+ depending on their experience once they make a roster ($88K per for 17 weeks work on a PS - more than my PhD godson made landing his first full time job after 8 years of college hoping to find a cure for cancer...). The vast majority of draftees get a double if not triple digit signing bonus and roster bonuses or easily achievable escalators that exceed minimum wage.

Nick Kaczur as a midline example was well on the way to his first million the day he signed his first contract as the 100th player selected in the 3rd round of the 2005 draft. He achieved cumulative millionaire status by season two, and was earning in excess of a million by year 3 due to incentives. Thru 6 years if his career ends tomorrow he will have earned well over $10M (probably closer to $12M). Unless he reverts to off the field form and spends it all on booze and oxycontin he should be set for the rest of his days. Especially if he returns to Canada where his medical care is free... Not bad for a 31 year old farm boy.

I bet a lot of cops and firemen and servicemen and fishermen and miners and on and on who risk their lives both to make a living and to improve the quality of ours wish they could get anything approaching the lucrative deals the members of the NFLPA* are characterizing as the worst deal in history if not a form of slavery...:bricks:

 

[townes]

Townes, people disagree with you not necessarily because they are poorly informed or stupid but simply because that see things differently.

.

I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid by any means, in fact there are many who make sound points and good arguments, however there is a contingent who keep spewing crap and calling for the owners to crush the players even at the cost of a season and i made it clear that was who i was speaking to.

 

[townes]

Your solution that the NFL continue as is under the rules of the past 4 years is clearly maintaining the status quo while the parties negotiate. Everyone acknowledges that the players, for the most part, are satisfied with the status quo while the owners are not. So the owners want real negotiations to happen to change this.

They've had 2 years to negotiate. Exactly what progress has been made? I think everyone agrees that very little progress has been made. Looking back at a history of contract negotations between owners and unions, this is fairly typical. Concessions only tend to be made when hard and fast deadlines come and then the consequences of not reaching an agreement start to be felt by all parties. So your solution of maintaining the status quo while "negotiations" happen is very likely to result in very little negotiation.

So, if you were an owner that was unhappy with the existing contract, why would you choose to continue under the current circumstances with very little hope of true negotiations happening?

It's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

The 2010 rules were not the status quo but a compromise that had poison pills for both sides but ultimately favored ownership much more than the status quo did, and continuing to talk under those rules is clearly the best solution if negotiating a good deal for both sides was the goal, but it wasn't, crushing the players and dictating the deal was the goal and negotiating was never the route the owners favored.


Ownership to this point, and all those who side with them have NEVER made any real case for why a new deal was needed, they simply say that owners should always get what they want, which is hardly a sound argument in any case. record attendance, merchandise sales, TV deals, and new streams of revenues all point to record profits for ownership, and until someone can demonstrate that they actually needed a new deal I'm not going to buy the argument that any of this was necessary.



What you are saying is that the owners had to lock out the players, so back it up with some facts.

 

[townes]

Not when they initiate the problem by striking or by pre-emptively decertifiying which resulted in a lockout.:

Flat out lie, the players decertified because they were being locked out, not the other way around.


And the irony of the rest of your post is that those siding with the owners are also those who hate the unions that represent public workers, and want to see the police and firefighter unions crushed as well.

Players make very good money and pay a high price for it, and while i want to see a deal that is fair for all that maintains the structure of the game i'm not going to pretend that the players caused this problem. they should fire Smith and Kessler and the owners should fire Pash as a starting point for real talks, then agree to play as long as needed under 2010 rules until a deal is worked out in exchange for the players dropping the lawsuit while the owners end all plans for a lockout.


I'm pro player only in terms of who caused this, other than that I'm pro football and want them all to cut this crap out and create a long term deal that benefits all.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The 2010 rules were not the status quo but a compromise that had poison pills for both sides but ultimately favored ownership much more than the status quo did, and continuing to talk under those rules is clearly the best solution if negotiating a good deal for both sides was the goal, but it wasn't, crushing the players and dictating the deal was the goal and negotiating was never the route the owners favored.


Ownership to this point, and all those who side with them have NEVER made any real case for why a new deal was needed, they simply say that owners should always get what they want, which is hardly a sound argument in any case. record attendance, merchandise sales, TV deals, and new streams of revenues all point to record profits for ownership, and until someone can demonstrate that they actually needed a new deal I'm not going to buy the argument that any of this was necessary.



What you are saying is that the owners had to lock out the players, so back it up with some facts.

You keep insisting the players were willing to continue under the 2010 rules. That is not what they proposed. They proposed the owners opt back in to the remainder of the 2006 deal in the interim (a deal the union negotiated at gunpoint that ran through 2012). They had already filed collusion charges against the owners (still pending) based on the 2010 season and the lack of splashy FA signings... Absent a clear understanding of what a new CBA would entail they weren't going to see too many more splashy FA signings in 2011-2012 and in effect all the union was looking to do was stall either the screwing they agreed to allow for their 2010 FA members or postponing an inevitable new CBA that would not include having a Minnesota Federal Judge in their pocket resulting in this very same confrontation in 2 more seasons. What would be the point? Other than giving immediate gratification folks who just want their entertainment delivered in the here and now regardless of the long term implications a shortlived and shortsighted reprieve??

There are lots of aspects of the recently expired CBA that did not work well not just for owners but for fans and for the good of the game and even for the long term health and safety of the players past, present and future. Postponing fixing those doesn't accomplish anything. And dragging their case to court as the players did is just looking for a way to stall if not avoid the inevitable. If they weren't in court right now they could be negotiating a CBA instead of filing motions and attending mediation that is meaningless in the absence of a collective bargaining relationship. The lockout didn't cause that to be the case, the decertification did.

 

[townes]

You keep insisting the players were willing to continue under the 2010 rules. That is not what they proposed. They proposed the owners opt back in to the remainder of the 2006 deal in the interim (a deal the union negotiated at gunpoint that ran through 2012).

Not according to this editorial from Pro Football weekly editor Hub Arkush, and I have not seen anything that rebuts it.


Posted May 03, 2011 @ 2:32 p.m. ET
By Hub Arkush
The low point of the 2011 NFL draft for me was an interview I heard with DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, and Jeremy Schaap on ESPN radio, about a half hour before the draft actually began Thursday night.

Before I explain, let me set the table. Certainly by now we've all seen enough to understand clearly that this labor mess is about nothing more than greed and arrogance, and the NFL owners' desire to increase their profits and profit margins by taking back compensation currently being paid to the players, and severely limiting how much they can receive in the future.

To date the players have won just about every skirmish against the owners and are fairly well entrenched on the high ground. Right up until they decertified their union on March 11, the players continually offered to continue working under 2010 league rules while they negotiated if the owners would promise not to lock them out — the exclamation point here being that the 2010 rules were far less favorable to the players than the rules they played under from 2006-09 under the last Collective Bargaining Agreement.





Arkush concludes by saying that he believes Smith is leading the players down the wrong road and i agree with him on that, however he is clear about the fact that the players wanted to keep playing under 2010 rules.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how any fifth or sixth year player who is hit with a RFA tender would want to play for the 2010 rules. I'm sure they are thinking to themselves, sure I could be a free agent and get a $30 million contract if I fight this but I want to play under the one year $2 million I am tendered at.

I guarantee you if the league said tomorrow that they are ending the lockout and implementing the 2010 rules, the players would have brief in front of Judge Nelson or Doty within 10 minutes seeking an injunction to prevent the league from imposing restricted free agent tenders and franchise tags. I guarantee the brief is already written and just waiting to be dated and signed.

The players put up with the restrictions of free agency in 2010 because the CBA was still in place and they had no choice. No way do fifth and sixth year players willingly go into another year of six years of unrestricted free agency without fighting it in court. The whole Brady et la lawsuit is to get rid of those restrictions all together.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Isn't the whole point that the owners don't like the size of the slice of pie the players are getting?

The owners and players are both trying to get as much pie as they can, and the discussion they're having (do the players get 42% of the pie or 51%?) is a straight business negotiation that it's hard for me to get exorcised about one way or another.

Actually it is the future slice versus the reduced profit margins. What has happened already has happened. The owners see the future of their team, the players see the future of their bank accounts, that is the major difference. One can dismiss the owners concerns, but that person cannot deny that the profits that were in place in 2006 are no longer in place in 2011.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid by any means, in fact there are many who make sound points and good arguments, however there is a contingent who keep spewing crap and calling for the owners to crush the players even at the cost of a season and i made it clear that was who i was speaking to.

Can we settle for just ruining DeMaurice Smith's career?

 

[Shelterdog]

Arkush concludes by saying that he believes Smith is leading the players down the wrong road and i agree with him on that, however he is clear about the fact that the players wanted to keep playing under 2010 rules.

Only stupid people believe a story like this without knowing all the details. Were they wailing to, for example, waive all antitrust claims against the owners for the 2011 season? Were they guaranteeing they would not decertify in 2011? A sports writers's summary of events in an editorial doesn't tell you all the facts you need to know.