Well looks more and more like both sides want to litigate over negotiate

[patfanken]

You know what really pisses me off about all the legal maneuvering that is going on. It that the laws that they are using were DESIGNED to protect the "little guy" from being screwed. NOT some guys whose MINIMUM salaries start at $400,000/yr. I resent the using of tax payer supported court time and legal resources in a disagreement which breaks down to basically about the differences in being very rich vs being obscenely rich...just because they CAN.

While judge Doty can rightfully complain about the fact that this dispute is even in his court, he doesn't have the ability to throw it out, simply because the law didn't narrowly define who can use it. Quite often the law doesn't make sense, and good lawyers use that fact to manipulate outcomes.

The "law" as it was written, is being used by the leaders of the players as a crutch. Its a smart move IF all you are interested is "winning". But that all that the LAWYERS that are running this debacle dare about. They are like the agents that claim victory when their clients get a 100MM deal and then are no where to be seen when they get cut after receiving less than a quarter of that.

No matter how this turns out, there will be a LOT of veteran players who are going to be hurt by this work stoppage. All because some egos couldn't take a necessary"small loss", and are going end up redefining the term "Pyrrhic Victory"

I kinda wondering just when the players are going to wake up.

 

[signbabybrady]

You know what really pisses me off about all the legal maneuvering that is going on. It that the laws that they are using were DESIGNED to protect the "little guy" from being screwed. NOT some guys whose MINIMUM salaries start at $400,000/yr. I resent the using of tax payer supported court time and legal resources in a disagreement which breaks down to basically about the differences in being very rich vs being obscenely rich...just because they CAN.

While judge Doty can rightfully complain about the fact that this dispute is even in his court, he doesn't have the ability to throw it out, simply because the law didn't narrowly define who can use it. Quite often the law doesn't make sense, and good lawyers use that fact to manipulate outcomes.

The "law" as it was written, is being used by the leaders of the players as a crutch. Its a smart move IF all you are interested is "winning". But that all that the LAWYERS that are running this debacle dare about. They are like the agents that claim victory when their clients get a 100MM deal and then are no where to be seen when they get cut after receiving less than a quarter of that.

No matter how this turns out, there will be a LOT of veteran players who are going to be hurt by this work stoppage. All because some egos couldn't take a necessary"small loss", and are going end up redefining the term "Pyrrhic Victory"

I kinda wondering just when the players are going to wake up.

Once again Patfanken writes what I am thinking much better than I could have said it myself usually he does this with football topics (well except after the draft he was polar opposite my thinking then).

 

[Off The Grid]

You know what really pisses me off about all the legal maneuvering that is going on. It that the laws that they are using were DESIGNED to protect the "little guy" from being screwed. NOT some guys whose MINIMUM salaries start at $400,000/yr.

I resent the using of tax payer supported court time and legal resources in a disagreement which breaks down to basically about the differences in being very rich vs being obscenely rich...just because they CAN.

While judge Doty can rightfully complain about the fact that this dispute is even in his court, he doesn't have the ability to throw it out, simply because the law didn't narrowly define who can use it. Quite often the law doesn't make sense, and good lawyers use that fact to manipulate outcomes.

The "law" as it was written, is being used by the leaders of the players as a crutch. Its a smart move IF all you are interested is "winning". But that all that the LAWYERS that are running this debacle dare about. They are like the agents that claim victory when their clients get a 100MM deal and then are no where to be seen when they get cut after receiving less than a quarter of that.

No matter how this turns out, there will be a LOT of veteran players who are going to be hurt by this work stoppage. All because some egos couldn't take a necessary"small loss", and are going end up redefining the term "Pyrrhic Victory"

I kinda wondering just when the players are going to wake up.

AMEN, Brother.

Almost every other industry has taken a substantial pay cut since 2006.

But this was inevitable: Smith wasn't going to win his job by promising a Pay Cut.

 

[townes]

I hope the owners win. Shut it down for all I care.

The best case is the union and all league rules are gone. No draft, no limit on contracts, whatever. Everyone is on their own. If it all goes up in smoke, well, that's that. Teach these greedy players a hard, hard, lesson.

This is no different than someone who supports the players hoping they win treble damages on each count and bankrupt the league and finish it off, in short is 100% dumbassed. Anyone who thinks the owners can simply do what they want if they lose is ignorant of what the case is about and possible outcomes, the owners need the players to agree to the rules they impose upon them and cannot run the league in any way they want to without it.

 

[townes]

You know what really pisses me off about all the legal maneuvering that is going on. It that the laws that they are using were DESIGNED to protect the "little guy" from being screwed. NOT some guys whose MINIMUM salaries start at $400,000/yr. I resent the using of tax payer supported court time and legal resources in a disagreement which breaks down to basically about the differences in being very rich vs being obscenely rich...just because they CAN.

While judge Doty can rightfully complain about the fact that this dispute is even in his court, he doesn't have the ability to throw it out, simply because the law didn't narrowly define who can use it. Quite often the law doesn't make sense, and good lawyers use that fact to manipulate outcomes.

The "law" as it was written, is being used by the leaders of the players as a crutch. Its a smart move IF all you are interested is "winning". But that all that the LAWYERS that are running this debacle dare about. They are like the agents that claim victory when their clients get a 100MM deal and then are no where to be seen when they get cut after receiving less than a quarter of that.

No matter how this turns out, there will be a LOT of veteran players who are going to be hurt by this work stoppage. All because some egos couldn't take a necessary"small loss", and are going end up redefining the term "Pyrrhic Victory"

I kinda wondering just when the players are going to wake up.

Ken, I answered your questions on this issue at length in the other thread but you never responded. The fact of the matter is that the players offered in mediation to continue talking for as long as it takes and keep football going under the pro owner rules they operated under in 2010, they didn't even ask to return to the much more player friendly rules of 2009, and the owners refused and insisted that the players continue to talk but only with a lock-out in place, and refused to keep football going. This left the players with no choice at all and forced a lawsuit, and while i agree that the players counsel is now going beyond the players best interests the idea that the players caused this is completely untrue. It is inexcusable that the owners refused the players offer to continue negotiations and continue football under 2010 rules.

 

[townes]

It sucks...but if that's what it takes to get it done right and secure a sustainable CBA for the next couple of decades as opposed to ending up like MLB or the NBA, so be it. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Too many people don't care about sustainability. They live for the moment. Like all the bankrupt former players who helped build the league that their own association pays hollow lip service to. For too many fans and players and former unions it's the what have you done for me lately league. Owners and hard core football fans are in it for the long haul.

Doty said yesterday that the courts don't like being asked to make decisions in business matter like this. Well DUH...:bricks:

You want them to - you know - negotiate their differences, throw the lawsuits and the sham decertification tactics out.

It is the lock-out that is "a sham," as the owners have forced season ticket holders to pay for the season.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Now that we've firmly established where everyone stands on the lockout, can we stop doing this? It's gotten old and this is ground that we've covered dozens of times by now.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

We need zombie Gene Upshaw here again!

Bring Paul Tagliabue back from retirement!

GET THIS CRAP OVER WITH!

 

[SanAngeloState]

This is no different than someone who supports the players hoping they win treble damages on each count and bankrupt the league and finish it off, in short is 100% dumbassed. Anyone who thinks the owners can simply do what they want if they lose is ignorant of what the case is about and possible outcomes, the owners need the players to agree to the rules they impose upon them and cannot run the league in any way they want to without it.

Not really. If there is no union, then the owners can hire whomever they want. For however long they want. Just like a regular company. I'm thinking no season next year and I'm psyched about it. The players are going to get a reality slap.

 

[jwmann2]

If you are a fan that has spent a significant amount of money going to NFL games and are not unhappy with the current lockout and their negotiations, then there is simply wrong with you. This should all make you sick to your stomach.

 

[patfanken]

Ken, I answered your questions on this issue at length in the other thread but you never responded. The fact of the matter is that the players offered in mediation to continue talking for as long as it takes and keep football going under the pro owner rules they operated under in 2010, they didn't even ask to return to the much more player friendly rules of 2009, and the owners refused and insisted that the players continue to talk but only with a lock-out in place, and refused to keep football going. This left the players with no choice at all and forced a lawsuit, and while i agree that the players counsel is now going beyond the players best interests the idea that the players caused this is completely untrue. It is inexcusable that the owners refused the players offer to continue negotiations and continue football under 2010 rules.

Sorry Townsie, I have been busy lately and pretty much sick of the topic. Suffice it to say that we both are honest brokers who are looking at the same picture and seeing two completely different things

HOWEVER your conclusion that the players were the ones who wanted to keep talking and were "forced" into decertifying simply begs the fact. Your statement implies that the lockout preceded the move to the courts, IT JUST DIDN'T happen that way. I simply can't get by the fact that there was a reasonable deal ON THE TABLE when the sham decertification took place. It contained several SIGNIFICANT concessions to the players, and while it might not have been a final product, it was CERTAINLY enough to continue the talks. Instead what the "union" did was to summarily dismiss the offer, WITHOUT even bothering a counter offer. I think their leadership called it "the worst deal in sports history". A ridiculous observation that even you would have to admit.\

No, Townsie, decertification was the goal all along. I understand why. It makes sense to a lawyer who wants to play on a familiar battleground, where there has been previous success. Why be the guy who negotiated a give back when you know the "law" is on your side.

And that brings up a second issue which has pissed me off the more I think about. I believe the law and the courts are being misused. We we probably DO agree is that the anti-trust laws are NECESSARY to protect the working class from corporate greed. However, they were NEVER intended to be used to fight to protect "workers" who the LOWEST paid amongst them....IF they LOSE the battle.....will STILL be paid among the top 1% in the country. Smart legal tactics....bad justice.

Damned you, Townsie, you got me started all over again. Lets end this by hoping it gets settled in time to enjoy the season....though what I thought was impossible just a month ago, has become chillingly possible

 

[townes]

Ken, i'm fine with leaving it alone but we do completely disagree. You are basing your contention the offer was fair on the word of jeff pash, who imo is a complete and total scumbag, Matt Light's take on the same offer was that it was the worst offer they had ever received and I believe his version much more than the owners. Fact is that the players said they would keep talking if there was no lockout, and the owners refused, so i hold them responsible, although as i have said before if the players allow their lawyers to take down the structure of the game I will place a great deal of blame on them for it.


As for the rights aspect of it they have to apply equally to everyone. The players can forfeit certain rights through a deal with the owners but the owners don't get to abridge them unilaterally just because players get paid well. I hope they all get some frigging sense before it is too late but i am growing more pessimistic about it by the day.

 

[townes]

Not really. If there is no union, then the owners can hire whomever they want. For however long they want. Just like a regular company. I'm thinking no season next year and I'm psyched about it. The players are going to get a reality slap.

The owners can hire whomever they want but can no longer operate as a collective making rules that infringe upon the players rights.

It's obvious now that you really aren't football fan so i won't bother discussing this with you any more. I don't know any football fan who doesn't want football back this year.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Ken, I'm fine with leaving it alone but we do completely disagree. You are basing your contention the offer was fair on the word of jeff pash, who IMO is a complete and total scumbag, Matt Light's take on the same offer was that it was the worst offer they had ever received and I believe his version much more than the owners. Fact is that the players said they would keep talking if there was no lockout, and the owners refused, so i hold them responsible, although as i have said before if the players allow their lawyers to take down the structure of the game I will place a great deal of blame on them for it.


As for the rights aspect of it they have to apply equally to everyone. The players can forfeit certain rights through a deal with the owners but the owners don't get to abridge them unilaterally just because players get paid well. I hope they all get some frigging sense before it is too late but i am growing more pessimistic about it by the day.

Townes,

I respect your opinions and have supported them numerous times. But we must agree to disagree here.

The issue is the rectification of a mistake by the owners, which they now acknowledge. They were warned by several owners that the last collective agreement was too rich in favor of the players.

Just like the past several agreements were too rich by the automakers vice the UAW. Thee result was that the cars they could afford to manufacture were price and feature uncompetitive with their competition, and the consumers chose not to buy enough of these inferior products. The result: bankruptcy and an eventual resetting of the wage and benefits levels,plus lots of suffering on all sides.

No matter "who shot John first", the owners have said player pay and benefit levels need a readjustment, downward. Whether they are "correct" or "incorrect" in any body else's measure or opinion, is wholly irrelevant. It is what the people who write the paychecks, the owners, believe to be true, and that is what will happen sooner or later, courts or no courts.

Naturally the players resist, they liked getting overpaid. But that is posturing and posing. Sooner or later and it appears later, that is what will happen.

Courts and fans are irrelevant in establishing what the pay and benefit levels will eventually be. There is plenty of proof, that there are lots of would be-players who will work for levels the owners are willing to pay. There are currently no owners petitioning to buy a franchise, and who are willing to step in place of current owners and to spend more. Even if there were owners who were willing to sellout, it is a lengthy process, including the acceptance and approval of all current owners.

 

[Ring 6]

This is no different than someone who supports the players hoping they win treble damages on each count and bankrupt the league and finish it off, in short is 100% dumbassed. Anyone who thinks the owners can simply do what they want if they lose is ignorant of what the case is about and possible outcomes, the owners need the players to agree to the rules they impose upon them and cannot run the league in any way they want to without it.

Actually they could but it would require restructuring the setup of the league. As 32 independent corporations aligned as a league there are Anti-Trust complications that are necessary to make the teams competitive with each other, and therefore the product popular.
Those issues are illegal if thrust upon employees but fine if collectively bargainned. If the players refuse to collectively bargain to a deal the owners feel is acceptable to them, then the owners can choose another course.
One course would be to abandon all aspects of operation that would violate AntiTrust, resulting in a damaged product, lack of comeptition, and a worse result for all, however under that worse result, they could reduce player comp to a level that would allow them to make a profit they find acceptable. If such a system cut revenue to 80% of what it was, owners can decide they only wish to devote 20% of that to player payroll, and actually end up more profitable. That would be legal, as long as there is no collaboative effort and each team made its own decision separately.
Alternatively, they could decide to not play football until the players decided to make an offer the owners felt financially accepable to them.
The league could also reorganize as one entity, with 32 'branch offices' that players are assigned to, hired or fired from, transfer to, promoted, demoted, etc. The league would be the employer, and the players, unionized or not, would be hired by the league and assigned a job in a 'branch office'. I am sure there are many internal issues among the owners that would make this complicated, but it is an option, even if only used as a negotiating hammer.
The owners own the businesses, and ultimately they can even choose to shut them down, temporarily or permanently if they wish.
The rub in all of this, is any move the owners make such as the above, which would harm them at least in the short term, would harm the players even more. The players are either gambling for negotiating advantage or totally out of touch with reality because the worst thing that could ever happen for them is for the court to decide they are free, have at will employment, and the owners say OK, lets do that. The biggest loss for the players would be an outright win in court that the owners choose not to turn into a settlement

 

[townes]

Actually they could but it would require restructuring the setup of the league. As 32 independent corporations aligned as a league there are Anti-Trust complications that are necessary to make the teams competitive with each other, and therefore the product popular.
Those issues are illegal if thrust upon employees but fine if collectively bargainned. If the players refuse to collectively bargain to a deal the owners feel is acceptable to them, then the owners can choose another course.
One course would be to abandon all aspects of operation that would violate AntiTrust, resulting in a damaged product, lack of comeptition, and a worse result for all, however under that worse result, they could reduce player comp to a level that would allow them to make a profit they find acceptable. If such a system cut revenue to 80% of what it was, owners can decide they only wish to devote 20% of that to player payroll, and actually end up more profitable. That would be legal, as long as there is no collaboative effort and each team made its own decision separately.
Alternatively, they could decide to not play football until the players decided to make an offer the owners felt financially accepable to them.
The league could also reorganize as one entity, with 32 'branch offices' that players are assigned to, hired or fired from, transfer to, promoted, demoted, etc. The league would be the employer, and the players, unionized or not, would be hired by the league and assigned a job in a 'branch office'. I am sure there are many internal issues among the owners that would make this complicated, but it is an option, even if only used as a negotiating hammer.
The owners own the businesses, and ultimately they can even choose to shut them down, temporarily or permanently if they wish.
The rub in all of this, is any move the owners make such as the above, which would harm them at least in the short term, would harm the players even more. The players are either gambling for negotiating advantage or totally out of touch with reality because the worst thing that could ever happen for them is for the court to decide they are free, have at will employment, and the owners say OK, lets do that. The biggest loss for the players would be an outright win in court that the owners choose not to turn into a settlement

I agree. Although i believe the players have the law on their side I agree with the conclusion of the Arkush editorial that D. Smith may well be leading them down a road that will damage the game and the players long term interests.

 

[townes]

Townes,

I respect your opinions and have supported them numerous times. But we must agree to disagree here.

The issue is the rectification of a mistake by the owners, which they now acknowledge. They were warned by several owners that the last collective agreement was too rich in favor of the players.

Just like the past several agreements were too rich by the automakers vice the UAW. Thee result was that the cars they could afford to manufacture were price and feature uncompetitive with their competition, and the consumers chose not to buy enough of these inferior products. The result: bankruptcy and an eventual resetting of the wage and benefits levels,plus lots of suffering on all sides.

No matter "who shot John first", the owners have said player pay and benefit levels need a readjustment, downward. Whether they are "correct" or "incorrect" in any body else's measure or opinion, is wholly irrelevant. It is what the people who write the paychecks, the owners, believe to be true, and that is what will happen sooner or later, courts or no courts.

Naturally the players resist, they liked getting overpaid. But that is posturing and posing. Sooner or later and it appears later, that is what will happen.

Courts and fans are irrelevant in establishing what the pay and benefit levels will eventually be. There is plenty of proof, that there are lots of would be-players who will work for levels the owners are willing to pay. There are currently no owners petitioning to buy a franchise, and who are willing to step in place of current owners and to spend more. Even if there were owners who were willing to sellout, it is a lengthy process, including the acceptance and approval of all current owners.

Az, i respect your opinion as well and likewise have agreed with you on many occasions, but not this one. from what i can tell you are saying that the players simply have to take whatever the owners offer and that's not a negotiation.

 

[townes]

Townes,

I respect your opinions and have supported them numerous times. But we must agree to disagree here.

The issue is the rectification of a mistake by the owners, which they now acknowledge. They were warned by several owners that the last collective agreement was too rich in favor of the players.

.

How is a bad deal, please be specific. The only owners who opposed it were the ones who don't invest in their franchises, like Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson, and the result of the deal was record ratings, TV deals, and profits, as well as attendance, so until i seed proof the owners weren't doing well I'm not believing it. just like big oil there is no amount of profit they will ever be satisfied with imo.


Jon Kraft structured the deal, he must be one lousy businessman to create a deal that fails the owners when they are making more money than ever.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Fact is that the players said they would keep talking if there was no lockout, and the owners refused, so i hold them responsible, although as i have said before if the players allow their lawyers to take down the structure of the game I will place a great deal of blame on them for it.

Are these the same players who said they would not negotiate if the owners didn't open their books? And then stopped negotiating when the owners refused to open their books?

I think there's a need for more balance in what you share.

 

[townes]

Are these the same players who said they would not negotiate if the owners didn't open their books? And then stopped negotiating when the owners refused to open their books?

I think there's a need for more balance.

Actually they are the same players who told the owners they would continue to negotiate for a deal and keep playing under the 2010 pro ownership rules that essentially killed free agency. And after the owners took more money from Direct TV to not play what player in their right mind would ever trust them without having the books open?

You ask for balance yet not one person supporting the owners has ever made a factual case as to why they needed to lock the players out. So far the entire pro owner argument has been that if the owners want more they should get more, and for a group of basically intelligent people that is the weakest argument imaginable. On the one hand people crow about what great businessmen these guys are while on the other insisting the made a deal so bad that they weren't making enough off of record ratings, attendance, merchandise sales, and TV deals that are skyrocketing. Seriously, an NFL owner would have to be beyond braindead to not be making big money.



There is simply no good reason at all that the owners refused the players offer to keep the game going for the season under the owner friendly rules while negotiating a good deal for all. the only logical reason for their refusal is that they don't want a fair deal they wanted to crush the players and dictate a lousy deal to them. There is no way the owners would have been harmed by playing 2011 under the present rules and there is absolutely no excuse for their refusal to do so.