Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[townes]

T

Nobody is forcing anybody to stay in a union. The union decertified prior to the expiration of the CBA and according to their beloved SSA of 1993 that allows the league to contend IT IS a sham decertification intended solely to force court involvement and create leverage. Had they waited until the CBA expired they could have decertified all they wanted to...just couldn't file an anti trust lawsuit then until September...and they would have lost any hope of retaining Judge Doty as their binky. Once they decertified the league had no choice but to lock out because otherwise they would be operating in violation of anti trust...

According to Andy Johnson the owners are exempt from anti-trust because it wasn't meant for football, however i agree with you that they are actually in violation of it once there is no union and that is why the player's decertified, because it was the only thing they could do to force the owners to deal in good faith, which they clearly haven't done.

 

[townes]

They only agreed to it with an opt out provision. How do you know both sides were making 'huge money' and even if so, how does that address the fairness of the split?



They opted out of it, and took the associated risks. THAT is proof.


No it isnt. They have a right to negotiate how they see fit. The fact that they were the ones unhappy with the status quo puts no 'burden of proof' on them to show you why they are.


Quite the contrary. Although you keep restating my opinion from what it is to what you want to argue against, my opinoin is not that the owners are right, it is that they have the right to negotiate however they see fit. Suely you can comprehend that difference cant you?


Quite the opposite. The owners actions clearly indicate they were unhappy with the current deal. How can you even attempt to argue otherwise? You feel they should be content becuase you think they are making money and you have decided it should be enough, with zero facts.
I am stating they are the entities on one side of the table is free to negotiate how they see fit, you are saying you feel they should be happy with what they have and suck it up.
Please explain how their actions indicate they are happy with the deal but just want to screw around.

I never said the owners weren't unhappy with the deal, although they agreed to it overwhelmingly, i said that both sides were making big money off of it and it was fair, and nothing anyone has shown has demonstrated otherwise, and given the billions and billions they are raking in the onus is on those claiming it was unfair to show why, and you haven't done that, you simply regurgitate the owners position that they want more so that makes it "unfair."


I believe both sides were doing just fine but the owners saw the chance for a power play that made them much much more going forward, so they went for it.

 

[townes]

It is impossible to argue because you are making up what my argument is.
I have not said any of what you are saying.
I am taking the owners side against the ridiculous position that they should kneel down, thank the players for their existence and except whatever the players chose to give them or be stripped of their ownership. I take the side against suggestions that business should make stupid business decisions.
You on the other hand, with absolutely zero facts of how much they are making under the current deal have judged them wrong, greedy and liars. Who is impossible to argue with?

Let me know when the owners open all their financials, then we'll know how much they are making, in the meantime i'll go by the billions they are making off of TV deals and the massive gate revenues.


The owners say they aren't making enough, since you are taking their side the onus is on you to show why that is, with facts, not the owners feelings.

 

[townes]

I know you now believe that anti trust only benefits owners and should be eliminated to punish them for making a savvy business deal heading into a potential work stoppage.

Now you are simply lying. The CBA benefitted all and gave the owers the ability to avoid an anti trust suit, that benefits all, not just the owners, and i have said that many times---both sides were doing well under it and i was fine with it continuing and have said so many times.

I do believe the owners should be punished for making a deal that would pay more for a lockout than for football, especially given that the revenues are shared and they were obligated to maximize the deal to share with the players.

Nice try with "work stoppage," a flat out lie. It is a lock-out and everyone knows that, claiming the players refused to work is absolute garbage.

 

[townes]

I'm not pro-owner, I am pro common sense, but Ill answer.
Do you understand what Communism is? Under a Communist regime, all production, and means of production is controlled and 'owned' by the government. The workers or 'employees of the company' are paid dirt poor wages and work under often inhumane conditions.
The NFL doesnt resemble this in any way.
An Anti-trust exemption, in place because AnitTrust laws were never intended for a situation such as a competitive professional sports league does not make it Communist.
Communist states dont have to deal with leveling a playing field among teams so they can be competitive and give the fans a quality product.



Who said that?
If they only decertified as a ploy to be able to file a lawsuit in order to recertify later, then that is inappropriate. But I'm not sure why you think anyone says they must remain a union.
Based on your first question it would seem you wish them not be allowed to collectively bargain, wish the antitrust exemption repealed, the draft abolished, the CBA abandoned and the richest teams to get the best players. I dont know how that makes things better.




It took about 1 minute.

The NFL is arguing that the judge force the players to remAin in a union, that's a fact.

The NFL controls the means of production and shares the major source of revenue equally regardless of investment or effort in the franchises.

Nowhere under any definition of communism is the caveat that workers are paid dirt cheap and kept in horrible conditions, that claim is one you made up. Communism doesn't work in most instances but the model doesn't come with the definition you give it.

 

[mb6592]

lmao-you guys are calling me a "commie" while supporting a communist model, it doesn't get more absurd than that.

Wow, you got us - humans making seemingly hypocritical decisions. So what? Is it news to you that certain aspects of the socialist/communist model can be alluring (hello - Detroit?)? And may even be the best way in certain circumstances (e.g. sports, child rearing)? Just because we choose to follow this model in limited situations doesn't mean we have to subscribe to it as an overall, across the board, philosophy. In my household I try to give the same amount of love and support to all my children even as some work harder in their school work and do more for the houshold than others. If they chose to go into the family business they would have to accept that I wouldn't run my business the way I ran the household. Is this contradiction too hard for your mind to comprehend?

 

[Miguel]

That is wrong. The negotiated lockout insurance into the TV deal, and felt it was in their right. The special master agreed with them, so to say it was bad faith is ignorant.

Huh??
the special master "found that the NFL violated Article X, § 1(a)(i) when it granted NBC an additional regular-season game in the 2010 season and granted ESPN an additional right in the 2010 season in exchange for an amended work-stoppage provision. Op. 46, ¶¶ 15–16. The special master granted the Players $6.9 million in damages for the NBC violation, and determined that the Players had not met their burden of demonstrating damages with respect to the ESPN violation."

The above quote is from the Doty ruling.

 

[townes]

Wow, you got us - humans making seemingly hypocritical decisions. So what? Is it news too you that certain aspects of the socialism/communism model can be alluring? And may even be the best way in cirtain circumstances (e.g. sports, child rearing)? Just because we choose to follow this model in limited situations doesn't mean we have to subscribe to it as an overall, across the board, philosophy. In my household I try to give the same amount of love and support to all my children even as some work harder in their school work and do more for the houshold than others. If they chose to go into the family business they would have to accept that I wouldn't run my business the way I ran the household. Is this contradiction too hard for your mind to comprehend?

I'm a socialist, and proud of it.


I liked the NFL the way things were and wish a deal had gotten done, however imo the owners got greedy and forgot that they are only allowed to violate anti-trust statutes with the consent of the union per a CBA. When they made it clear they wouldn't deal in good faith and were hell bent on locking the players out of their jobs the players used the only card they had and challenged that anti-trust status.

I would be fine and very happy with both sides going back to the deal they had and engaging in binding arbitration, the owners refuse to do that.


I see nothing extreme in believing they were all doing well and that the owners forced this issue, I believe that's where the truth lies, I simply don't buy the argument that the owners aren't making enough simply because they say so, which is the argument being made by the pro owner side here.

 

[mb6592]

I'm a socialist, and proud of it.

Good luck with that. The idea is enticing, but alas - human nature.

 

[mb6592]

I'm a socialist, and proud of it.


I liked the NFL the way things were and wish a deal had gotten done, however imo the owners got greedy and forgot that they are only allowed to violate anti-trust statutes with the consent of the union per a CBA. When they made it clear they wouldn't deal in good faith and were hell bent on locking the players out of their jobs the players used the only card they had and challenged that anti-trust status.

Your socialistic view is driving your argument. Since I'm not a socialist I see two wealthy sides trying to negotiate the best deal they can. I could care less about the particulars. I hope the season is not delayed. You see two wealthy sides with one side getting a bigger portion of the pie. As a true socialist you cannot countenance that.

 

[plk]

I'm a socialist, and proud of it.

I am a capitalist and proud of it.

But I completely agree with your post. That is something I do not have occasion to say here very often.

 

[Ring 6]

Huh??
the special master "found that the NFL violated Article X, § 1(a)(i) when it granted NBC an additional regular-season game in the 2010 season and granted ESPN an additional right in the 2010 season in exchange for an amended work-stoppage provision. Op. 46, ¶¶ 15–16. The special master granted the Players $6.9 million in damages for the NBC violation, and determined that the Players had not met their burden of demonstrating damages with respect to the ESPN violation."

The above quote is from the Doty ruling.

There were many points where they disagreed, and where the special master found in the owners favor.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes you do, however i guess i can now claim that everything you have said about the players applies to Brady, he really screwed the owners as that appearrs to be the standard you are using.

I have not said the players screwed the owners.
Only you are trying to paint one side as wrong and one side as right.
I have said numerous times both sides have done what they are supposed to do in an impasse.
If you were making ridiculous unsupported claims against the players and the union, then I would be arguing the other side.
See I am not hammering away so fiercely at one side so that when you put a name to it, I have to backpedal and make up a pretend claim that he is the only one on his side that disagrees, and he is being blackballed.

If you believe the Kraft's didn't want to be part of the negotiations then imo you're crazy. Kraft is one of the power brokers in the NFL and he wasn't even around for the negotiations, i seriously doubt it was because he didn't want to be.

Kraft has been part of every step, except that which took place while he was out of the country.

Once again i never said the owners "blackballed" him but because you can't make any decent argument in the owners defense i guess you have no choice but to try and twist words and manipulate the argument.

You said he wanted to be there but the other owners wouldn't let him. That is black-balled. Its simply a phrase that is shorter than he wanted to be there and the other owners wouldnt let him.
And your claim is 100% made up and 100% ridiculous. Please give me any source of evidence on this.

 

[Ring 6]

I never said the owners weren't unhappy with the deal, although they agreed to it overwhelmingly, i said that both sides were making big money off of it and it was fair,

How can you determine it is fair? If the owners want out, clearly they feel it isn't fair. What knowledge of the intracacies of the deal and the owners success under it do you have to make that determination? You are just making things up.

and nothing anyone has shown has demonstrated otherwise,

The owners opted out. Who are you expecting to determine it isn't fair?

and given the billions and billions they are raking in the onus is on those claiming it was unfair to show why, and you haven't done that, you simply regurgitate the owners position that they want more so that makes it "unfair."

Who's position says it IS fair?
There is no onus. The owners are not required t explain why the deal was no longer acceptable to them because they negotiated an opt out that did not require them to prove to anyone why they wanted out.
If there are 2 sides to a deal and one wants in and one wants out, that pretty much by definition is an unfair deal. What are you using to say it is fair? That the players wanted it to continue? That is flawed beyond belief.

I believe both sides were doing just fine but the owners saw the chance for a power play that made them much much more going forward, so they went for it.

Why do you believe that? What specific reasons do you have to believe that the deal did not overwhelming favor one side or the other?
Every point you make is based on your instinct that the owners are greedy liars. Why discuss something and look for evidence to support your argument if you don't want evidence but instead want to say "Owners are bad therefore players are right about everything and everythign the owners say is a lie".
That is a very clsoed minded and childish approach.

 

[Ring 6]

The NFL is arguing that the judge force the players to remAin in a union, that's a fact.

Wow, you understanding of these things is shockingly naive.
The owners are stating that the players have no intention of not remianing a union, and are in fact acting as a union, but hiding behind decertification to receive treatment as non-unionized in order to have a better case, with the intention of continuing to act as a union. That is so far from what you just stated that you can't really understand this issue if you really believe that.

The NFL controls the means of production and shares the major source of revenue equally regardless of investment or effort in the franchises.

The NFL is not the government. Sharing of revenue does not exist in a Communist state.

Nowhere under any definition of communism is the caveat that workers are paid dirt cheap and kept in horrible conditions, that claim is one you made up.

It is not a requirement of communism, but it is the result in 100% of the cases. Please refute that.

Communism doesn't work in most instances but the model doesn't come with the definition you give it.

I didnt define it. But everything I said is either consistent with or an undeniable result of a Communist regime.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm a socialist, and proud of it.

Well that really explains a lot.

I liked the NFL the way things were and wish a deal had gotten done,

What does that have to do with any of this?
The NFL isn't going to change because of a labor dispute.
Are you really telling me that you like the NFL is the players share is X bu dislike it if the players share is Y?

however imo the owners got greedy and forgot that they are only allowed to violate anti-trust statutes with the consent of the union per a CBA.

You aren't violating something by having an exemption.
Of course you have used the term greedy for the 99,000th time still not explaining where you derive your facts from to show why the previous deal should be acceptable to anyone except the greedy, so why would we worry about facts any more?

When they made it clear they wouldn't deal in good faith

They were at the table, they came close enough in the negoatiations for both sides to agree to an extension of the deadline. They agreed to mediation, they gave over financial information they were not required to do and it was not even looked at, they offered 5 years of every teams financials to be reviewed by an independent 3rd party and audited, and that was rejected. Why do you think they weren't dealing in good faith? Because you think sight unseen they must already have a good deal so they should shut up and take whatever their employees will allow them to have?

and were hell bent on locking the players out of their jobs the players used the only card they had and challenged that anti-trust status.

The lock out was the only card the owners had too.
Why would they have negotiated and did all of the things I listed above if they were 'hell bent' on locking out? Why would that even makes sense? How is locking out a good thing for the owners? Its a move that they were forced to do unless they wanted to be held to a deal they no longer wanted to be part of.
You seem to be missing the point where the owners have said that if the deal they were in was the only deal available they choose not to continue.

I would be fine and very happy with both sides going back to the deal they had and engaging in binding arbitration, the owners refuse to do that.

Why would they? They opted out because they didn't like the deal.
Are you seriously telling me that when 2 sides have opt outs and one chooses to exercise you think the solution is to go back to where things were? Thats moronic.
Why would anyone accept binding arbitration? Would you agree to binding arbirtration over what you should be paid for your job?

I see nothing extreme in believing they were all doing well

Of course you don't because you are basing it on you making up the fact that they are all doing well. You have not a scintilla of evidence.
I have as much evidence that the owners are all on the verge of bankruptcy, which is an equally ignorant claim.

and that the owners forced this issue, I believe that's where the truth lies, I simply don't buy the argument that the owners aren't making enough simply because they say so, which is the argument being made by the pro owner side here.

NO ONE except you is making that argument.
The argument is that the only people who can decide if the deal is good enough, and the profits are acceptable to the owners is the owners.
Who do you wish to make that decision?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Really? The TV revenues aren't split equally among the 32 teams?


I never said operating expenses weren't different, and that is your argument here, the TV deals, which are the bulk of the owners take are equally shared, that's communist.

lmao at your "extortion" comment, jonathan kraft apparently extorted the owners because he created that deal.

The TV revenues are split equally among 32 teams who then fork over 59% of them to the players. Those TV revenues of $4B represent roughly 45% of the $9B pie. The disparity between owners lies in the other 55%. Some owners can't compete because of their geographic location or stadium situation, some aren't as media savvy, a couple are penny wise and pound foolish, but at the end of the day they understand that they all need each other to continue to thrive or there won't be enough franchises playing to fill the demand from those TV deals.

People are quick to forget that in 2006 fans were demanding that owners do whatever they had to to avoid either a work stoppage then and there or the unthinkable uncapped year and all those restrictive rules unfold to end to NFL football as we'd known it. Upshaw was flying to California with his pit bull in tow threatening to unleash armegedon if he didn't get the same % of a substantially larger pie. The owners caved reluctantly and the Krafts played a role in brokering the 11th hour deal on two levels (owners and players) that saved the season. Shame on them for getting caught short and not standing firm then, no shame in taking a stand now. They are trying to broker a sustainable deal that will last for a decade so we don't have to deal with this horse**** every couple of years...Damn them.

Would a handful of them screw the players just for the simple pleasure of it? You bet. There's always a handful of SOB's in any group. But that's no different than what Upshaw did to polish up his epitaph last time around. Or what DeMaurice is doing to polish his resume this time out. The majority of players and owners come down somewhere in the middle, they get they need each other and there is enough to go around to do a deal everyone can live with. Those voices just won't be heard until the courts tell the egotistical rhetoric spewers much like yourself to sit down and stfu and focus their energy on negotiating a deal both sides can live with.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Well that really explains a lot.

What's wrong with him being a socialist? Professional football is about the furthest thing from a capitalist industry that you can find, anyways.

 

[Ring 6]

What's wrong with him being a socialist? Professional football is about the furthest thing from a capitalist industry that you can find, anyways.

He can be whatever he wants, I could care less. Did I say there was something wrong with it?

 

[Miguel]

There were many points where they disagreed, and where the special master found in the owners favor.

Bottom line is that the special master did NOT exonerate the owners. He concluded that some of their behavior violated the SSA and the CBA and awarded players damages.