I want mo' money

[townes]

Bump to see if Deus Irae will continue to avoid the direct answer to his own question that proves him wrong.

reposted for irony.

 

[Ring 6]

The posts are so longwinded that I won't bother reposting them, i'll simply say what I have to say and leave it at that.

I came here to talk football, not politics, and this debate is a political debate and not a football debate, and the arguments made reflect that. I want to see football and talk football and I place the blame according to who stopped the game and why, and that goes to the owners, who want more but refuse to demonstrate why they need it. They have created a situation where they have to be trusted to make a deal and because of their own behavior they cannot be trusted. This leaves two choices, give the players a lump sum to play and let them take it or leave it, or open their books so the players can verify that they are getting the share agreed upon, and the owners refuse to do that, so we are left with owners locking out players, and I blame the owners for that, period.

You keep saying this. There is no dispute over what the revenues are.
If you disagree with that, please show me anything in any of the negotiations where the players have disputed that the method of calculating revenues is wrong.
You are blaming the owners for refusing to do something they have been doing for years. REVENUE IS ALREADY TRANSPARENT.

Had the players gone on strike for more while refusing to show why they need or deserve more then i'd blame them, as i have in the past in those situations, but in this situation the owners spent years preparing to lock the players out and forced them to decertify by not even beginning to negotiate until the last second, leaving the players the choice of either using their one bargaining chip or losing it, the players chose to use it and i don't blame them.

How do you show why you need more money to want to remain in a business arrangement?
They are saying they are unhappy with the profit margin.
Are you really suggesting that they need to 'prove' what that profit margin is so you can tell them whether they should be happy with it? Or that they should let the union be able to make that decision for them?
You are asking the guy you are playing poker with to show you his hand to make the game fair again.

I have zero interest in discussing politics because I am completely disgusted with them and don't invest any time or effort on following them any longer, so i'm no longer going to bother with a discussion that while ostensibly about the NFL is really just a vehicle for people to make stands on their personal political philosophies.

I thought we were talking about the CBA negotiations.

 

[Ring 6]

reposted for irony.

Please explain.
I have PAINSTAKINGLY read each of your posts and responded to every question, reasonable or not.
Feel free to list anything you have asked that I have not given a response to and you will get one, which will probably be the 15th time. Pretty sure it won't be the one you would like it to be, but as you have in every single case, you will get my answer....again.

 

[Ring 6]

Bump to see if Deus Irae will continue to avoid the direct answer to his own question that proves him wrong.

bump again, its awful quiet in here

 

[DropKickFlutie]

reposted for irony.

He doesn't get it. AndyJohnson is a mouth piece or PR agent working for the Pats, if it weren't already blatantly obvious.

 

[Ring 6]

He doesn't get it. AndyJohnson is a mouth piece or PR agent working for the Pats, if it weren't already blatantly obvious.

Why would you not reply to my direct response to you?
What exactly is your problem?

 

[Miguel]

Its been reported that under the old CBA the owners had the right to change the schedule to 18 games without player permission, but during negotation took that 18 games off the table.

Roger Goodell said that a couple of times. It is true but he forgot to include a rather important point.

"The League and/or Clubs cannot at any time during this Agreement increase the number of regular season games per team from the standard of sixteen (16) without providing ninety (90) days notice in writing to the NFLPA and thereafter negotiating with the NFLPA with regard to additional compensation to be paid to players for additional regular season games. If the parties
are unable to agree on additional compensation within thirty (30) days after notice has been given, the issue of additional compensation may be submitted by either party to the Impartial Arbitrator under Article XXVII (Impartial Arbitrator) for an expedited hearing and a final and binding decision. The Impartial Arbitrator will have the full authority to decide the amount of additional compensation to which the players will be entitled. In no event will the regular season be extended during this Agreement to include more than
eighteen (18) games per team."

Notes -
1.)The agreement already expired making the owners' offer a PR stunt. Remember that even with the extension no free agents could be signed or can players be released.
2.) Since all season-ticket holders have been sent their invoices, it would be a logistical nightmare to then extend the 2011 season.

 

[Miguel]

I do not care to comment on the Directv deal because 2 separate authorities found differently, and choosing one or the other is simply executing a bias.

Alternatively, you can look at the CBA and see where it says "The NFL
and each NFL Team shall in good faith act and use their best efforts, consistent with sound business judgment, so as to maximize Total Revenues for each playing season during the term of this Agreement." and then look at the facts of the TV deals case and make up your own mind. I, for one, do not understand how anyone can not conclude that the owners purposely fail to maximize revenues for the 2009 and 2010 season after reading about the testimony from those involved in the contracts.

 

[upstater1]

Roger Goodell said that a couple of times. It is true but he forgot to include a rather important point.

"The League and/or Clubs cannot at any time during this Agreement increase the number of regular season games per team from the standard of sixteen (16) without providing ninety (90) days notice in writing to the NFLPA and thereafter negotiating with the NFLPA with regard to additional compensation to be paid to players for additional regular season games. If the parties
are unable to agree on additional compensation within thirty (30) days after notice has been given, the issue of additional compensation may be submitted by either party to the Impartial Arbitrator under Article XXVII (Impartial Arbitrator) for an expedited hearing and a final and binding decision. The Impartial Arbitrator will have the full authority to decide the amount of additional compensation to which the players will be entitled. In no event will the regular season be extended during this Agreement to include more than
eighteen (18) games per team."

Notes -
1.)The agreement already expired making the owners' offer a PR stunt. Remember that even with the extension no free agents could be signed or can players be released.
2.) Since all season-ticket holders have been sent their invoices, it would be a logistical nightmare to then extend the 2011 season.

Thanks for providing the legal language.

When you consider the NFL's argument for 18 games (that season ticket holders are upset at paying top dollar for preseason games) then the proviso in the legalese becomes all that much more important. The owners want to give the fans more product, not take less money for preseason games. So, beyond TV revs, that doesn't mean more money to spread around to players. They're not going to increase the price of the two regular season games. This naturally means that the ONLY bump players will receive will be from TV revenues. This means playing extra games cannot possibly result in the players receiving anything more than a small bump in pay (TV revs per game * 2 divided by owners and players).

But, one wonders if there will be a dilution of the TV package as well with an additional two weeks. As well, players careers might end quicker.

The thing that gets me about the owners argument is that people make such a big deal about how much preseason games cost. It reminds me of the arguments about Greece's economic meltdown last year. (I was doing economic research on the country at the time). People were saying that Greeks were getting paid way too much because they were receiving bonus checks (the gov't pays out bonuses to federal workers) at Christmas time. The gov't did do away with the bonus checks. BUT, the average salary of federal workers was 7k euros at the time. Now, what difference does a bonus check make? Who cares how many times you are paid a year? It's like saying McDonald's employees must be rich because they get paid 52 times a year. And yet you had reporters and commentators using this logic constantly. It's the same thing with the preseason. You have to think of paying for those games as subsidizing the regular season. You have to think of the whole package altogether, not just the preseason game. If they dropped the price of preseason games, they would simply raise the price of regular season games. In the end, the season ticket holder shells out the same amount of cash for the same amount of product. All else is PR and appearances.

 

[townes]

Please explain.
I have PAINSTAKINGLY read each of your posts and responded to every question, reasonable or not.
Feel free to list anything you have asked that I have not given a response to and you will get one, which will probably be the 15th time. Pretty sure it won't be the one you would like it to be, but as you have in every single case, you will get my answer....again.

Andy, you ignored the primary point I am making, that the entire issue is one of trust when asking and expecting the players to take less and base it upon revenues. The owners abridged that trust in the Direct TV deal which you have already acknowledged you won't address, and miguel has made clear that there is no way around the owners duplicity in this deal. Beyond that you are acting as if the owners aren't asking for givebacks when they clearly are, and what you are essentially saying is that the owners can do whatever they want, to which there is no response or counter that matters.

As I said before I came here to talk football, not politics, and this is now a political issue with lines clearly drawn, so I'm stepping out as I don't care at all about politics and all the meaningless blather that surrounds them. You guys can go around and around on this but I know who killed football, and it wasn't the players, as they simply wanted to continue a deal that was making all of them filthy rich, unfortunately filthy rich is never enough for the richest.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, you ignored the primary point I am making, that the entire issue is one of trust when asking and expecting the players to take less and base it upon revenues.

The owners abridged that trust in the Direct TV deal which you have already acknowledged you won't address, and miguel has made clear that there is no way around the owners duplicity in this deal. Beyond that you are acting as if the owners aren't asking for givebacks when they clearly are, and what you are essentially saying is that the owners can do whatever they want, to which there is no response or counter that matters.[/quote]
I'm not ignoring your primary point, I have addressed it many times in this thead and others. I disagree with it. That is different than ignoring it. I think it has nothing to do with trust. Why should the players need to trust how the owners spend their share?
Again I have answered numerous times that revenues ARE transparent already. This is the fact that you are ignoring.
You continue to call for financials as a matter of trust, but revenues are not in question. I find it naive to think that the owners have an obligation to show what they do with their money in order to say they want to set the split at a different level.
And of course, the offered financials and were refubbed, which destroys your argument.

As far as the TV deals I've taken some time to review the facts.
If you want to discuss it, I will. Tell me what your understanding is of what happened and what you find wrong, and I will respond.

Also IMO you are miscategorizing Miguels comments. He feels the NFL violated the agreement. He did not say anything about duplicity. There is a big difference in the 2.

As I said before I came here to talk football, not politics, and this is now a political issue with lines clearly drawn, so I'm stepping out as I don't care at all about politics and all the meaningless blather that surrounds them. You guys can go around and around on this but I know who killed football, and it wasn't the players, as they simply wanted to continue a deal that was making all of them filthy rich, unfortunately filthy rich is never enough for the richest.

You sound like someone was twisting you arm to make all of those posts.
You probably should back away you seem to be taking this issue way to personally.

 

[Ring 6]

Alternatively, you can look at the CBA and see where it says "The NFL
and each NFL Team shall in good faith act and use their best efforts, consistent with sound business judgment, so as to maximize Total Revenues for each playing season during the term of this Agreement." and then look at the facts of the TV deals case and make up your own mind. I, for one, do not understand how anyone can not conclude that the owners purposely fail to maximize revenues for the 2009 and 2010 season after reading about the testimony from those involved in the contracts.

I have taken some time to review this.
I can see where the special master and judge could rule differently.
In essence the special master emphasized 'sound business judgement' and the judge emphasized 'good faith'. You get two very different stories in those cases.
There are a lot of factors that I have never heard discussed, such as the motivation by the league that lost TV revenue in a work stoppage could cause them to be in default on loans.
The NFL also made a defense that the impact of the deals came after the CBA expired, so its tenants did not cover that, and the judge felt that even though it was a future negotiation since it happened during the CBA term it was included.
The judge found also that sound business judgment didnt apply to a potential lockout because they didnt have to lockout.
I am no lawyer, and those may be unquestionable legal conclusions, but the special master did interpet them differently, and whether Doty's ruling would hold up on appeal or not, I think this is being made out to be much more nefarious and sneaky than it was.
It seems to me that the NFL was protecting itself against a lockout, and believed that the sound business judgment clause allowed them to legally do so.
Really, whether good faith overrides sound business judgment or the opposite, you could rule either way.
I could certainly argue that at that time if the NFL did not pursue the renegotiated contracts and lockout insurance they would not be using sound business judgment because they would be putting themselves in a position of default on their loans and risk insolvency.
The judge ruled that essentially that it was their choice to have debt so they can't use that as an excuse.

It would be presumptuous of me to say I can make a legal judgment on whether the ruling was correct or not. But I can easily see that the NFL had reason to believe they were not violating the CBA.

 

[Ring 6]

Bump to see if Deus Irae will continue to avoid the direct answer to his own question that proves him wrong.

Wow, 2 days and still no response. I can't imagine how impressive the response is after all the courage-gathering that is going on to get to the point of giving one.

 

[DW Toys]

I have taken some time to review this.
I can see where the special master and judge could rule differently.
In essence the special master emphasized 'sound business judgement' and the judge emphasized 'good faith'. You get two very different stories in those cases.
There are a lot of factors that I have never heard discussed, such as the motivation by the league that lost TV revenue in a work stoppage could cause them to be in default on loans.
The NFL also made a defense that the impact of the deals came after the CBA expired, so its tenants did not cover that, and the judge felt that even though it was a future negotiation since it happened during the CBA term it was included.
The judge found also that sound business judgment didnt apply to a potential lockout because they didnt have to lockout.
I am no lawyer, and those may be unquestionable legal conclusions, but the special master did interpet them differently, and whether Doty's ruling would hold up on appeal or not, I think this is being made out to be much more nefarious and sneaky than it was.
It seems to me that the NFL was protecting itself against a lockout, and believed that the sound business judgment clause allowed them to legally do so.
Really, whether good faith overrides sound business judgment or the opposite, you could rule either way.
I could certainly argue that at that time if the NFL did not pursue the renegotiated contracts and lockout insurance they would not be using sound business judgment because they would be putting themselves in a position of default on their loans and risk insolvency.
The judge ruled that essentially that it was their choice to have debt so they can't use that as an excuse.

It would be presumptuous of me to say I can make a legal judgment on whether the ruling was correct or not. But I can easily see that the NFL had reason to believe they were not violating the CBA.

Good stuff Cousin,
Let's put a different spin on this but a very good comparison analogy. If you own a business in an earthquake fault area and decide to have a building built to withstand earthquakes and the company offers a guarantee against failure, would it not still be fastidious to buy earthquake insurance if offered, as well?

Here is another analogy that is scary to most men. Your girlfriend has decided that her clock is ticking and she wants a baby.....now! This perhaps is not your cup of tea. She has threatened to pull the goalie in the past. Do you start wearing a "rain coat" until the threat is over when she sees how fat her sister with the third baby has become (in fact it scares you even more that her sister can now tatoo "Yes" and "No" on each cheek, or "Caution, Makes wide turns", or "Loading Dock", or "Post No Bills", or "Watch for falling rocks" etc., you get it, on her now humongous derriere), or do you take her very, very seriously and get a vasectomy?

Smith had made it perfectly clear with the NFL of his intentions with what he termed as letters, for some time. If these letters were deemed as threats by the League, would you not prepare? What am I missing here...I forgot.... I was using common sense.

So the guy that got the vasectomy was nefarious and sneaky? No he was just protecting his "not his cup of tea" lifestyle.
DW Toys

 

[Ring 6]

Good stuff Cousin,
Let's put a different spin on this but a very good comparison analogy. If you own a business in an earthquake fault area and decide to have a building built to withstand earthquakes and the company offers a guarantee against failure, would it not still be fastidious to buy earthquake insurance if offered, as well?

Its not a good analogy because it leaves out the obligation of owners to maximize each years revenue. They absolutely violated that by taking less in 2009 than they could have gotten. They felt it was appropriate because the deal was about a year after the CBA expired, he court disagreed.
The discrepancy is whether their 'good faith' obligation in the CBA/SSA to maiximize revenues overrode the language in the same sentence that qualified it with best business judgment.
The owners felt they were only obligated to maximize revenues if it did not conflict with their best business judgment, the special master agreed, Judge Doty did not.
In either case, it wasn't analogous to buying insurance because even though ultimately that insurance money would be shared with the union, it was not in the unions best interest FOR THAT YEAR.

Here is another analogy that is scary to most men. Your girlfriend has decided that her clock is ticking and she wants a baby.....now! This perhaps is not your cup of tea. She has threatened to pull the goalie in the past. Do you start wearing a "rain coat" until the threat is over when she sees how fat her sister with the third baby has become (in fact it scares you even more that her sister can now tatoo "Yes" and "No" on each cheek, or "Caution, Makes wide turns", or "Loading Dock", or "Post No Bills", or "Watch for falling rocks" etc., you get it, on her now humongous derriere), or do you take her very, very seriously and get a vasectomy?

You have left the reservation.

Smith had made it perfectly clear with the NFL of his intentions

with what he termed as letters, for some time. If these letters were deemed as threats by the League, would you not prepare? What am I missing here...I forgot.... I was using common sense.

So the guy that got the vasectomy was nefarious and sneaky? No he was just protecting his "not his cup of tea" lifestyle.
DW Toys

It all boils down to whether 'good faith' is subject to best business judgment of whether best business judgment is subject to good faith.
My opinion is if good faith supercedes best business judgment, then there are no cases where best business judgment would come into play so it wouldn't be in there.
Example:
If Good Faith comes before best business judgment, then you would make every move to maximize THIS YEARS revenue, and your judgment cannot be considered. (IMO this is where Doty erred)
If Business Judgment comes before Good Faith or they are on equal footing, then you are exercising Good Faith, until it becomes a poor business decision at which point you override it.
Judge Doty sees it differently.