What?.......Sean I completely disagree. When the negotiations started there is evidence and proof the Li'Mo the Pimpster had made up his mind to not negotiate. What are you talking about?
Many legal minds stated that the last deal on the table for the Players was pretty good. It was tweakable.
The owners had the right to opt out of the CBA. What is everyone thinking that they will just say...."well, O.K. we'll go by last years CBA". That is crazy talk. The lats CBA deal for them was not a good one.
What you fail to realize is that the only thing the players have won is the fact that a liberal judge has said the NFL must open the doors and have a 2011 season which was expected. She inadvertently left the door wide open for the Owners now with no CBA in place or Union to dictate the rules as they wish, to who now are completely independent contractors who are not eligible for any benefits or might have to pay for their own tickets on the Team plane.
They have no agreement in place for a percentage of League profits.
They have no voice protecting them and can no longer strike because they are not a Union.
They have to file W9 forms and pay their own taxes.
The League can change the schedule to 18 games as they so wish.
The League can make up their own roster limits and CAP laws to prevent smaller market Teams from an unfair advantage over big spenders. This could cut rosters by 25% just to spite the NFPLA that is NOT in anti-trust. That alone is a fatal mistake to the NFLPA. It cost their members jobs. To fit the new CAP elite players will have to take the place of Special Teamers. How is that going to fly between the haves and havenots. Ouch!
Now the NFLPA has just shut the door on hundreds of players by not negotiating and this was all set in motion by a numbskull judge who thought she was sticking it to the Owners? The NFL Lawyers knew this was going to happen and set a trap IMO.
The only thing the Owners lost is they have to open the doors to the players and get ready for the 2011 season.....with no set rules. So the Owners lost a pawn to get a Queen? And they got her.
DW Toys
The only knock out is they have to open the doors and proceed with some rules that they come up with for the 2011 season.
Nelson was duped. The Lawyers knew this would happen from a liberal judge. But she inadvertently left a big loop hole and gave the owners legal instructions to set up rules. You don't think the very smart Lawyers were praying for that mistake do you?
There is no CBA court ordered or other and now the players have put themselves in a tougher position as independent contractors. No rights no contract no percentage share. The Owners can do what they want as far as schedule, benefits if at all, Team size or CAP.
I see a few rounds won but the fight is not over and now it appears the bimbo judge was the unintended corner man fixing up the Owners very nice thank you.
DW Toys
And i think the owners have to push the letter and spirit of both the laws and the ruling as hard as possible. They need to find every nook and cranny and push it to as near as breaking as possible, to show the players what would happen if the NFL real were a true free market system. I mean is redoing contracts really out of the question?
The one thing i disagree with you is reducing the number of roster spots. They need to do away with the limit completely. Allow the rich teams to higher as many players as possible, to keep them away from other teams. Allow real free market destroy the enemy each team for itself and itself alone to happen. Show the players how quickly their income would drop in that situation.
I find the number of people fawning over the owners and their position completely bizarre. Yes, the players negotiated a good deal for themselves in 2006, but it's not like this deal was hurting the game. On the contrary, revenues were soaring. Everybody was winning. The players were making more money every year, but that's only because overall revenues were going up every year. I don't see how anyone could argue that the players don't deserve the money. They work for it, honestly, and they do an outstanding job of putting out a great product that attracts fan revenue. If these guys were rock musicians, nobody would argue that they shouldnt get a huge share of the gate.
The owners, on the other hand, were not happy with the 2006 deal and opted out, which is their right. They may feel they deserve a larger share of the money, and the lockout was their attempt to get it, which is fine. There's no reason for anyone to blame either side for wanting as much money as they can get. The only thing that was dishonest about the whole thing was the owners' excuse for the lockout -- this notion that they needed the extra money to make up for overhwhelming new expenses, which is ridiculous. There's plenty of money to go around and the problem is that the smaller clubs aren't making as much as the larger clubs, and moreover there are huge new revenue streams coming (ie digital platforms and so on), and so the owners thought this was a good time to fight for a bigger piece of the pie. Which, again, is their right. They took their shot, and they're going to lose, and that's that.
But the idea that all of this is somehow the players' fault is crazy. One previous poster asked how reasonable we would think it was if our boss asked is to continue working under minimum wage. This is a silly and inaccurate analogy, as the owners are not anywhere near minimum wage; they're all part of a quasi-socialistic enterprise that guarantees that even the worst teams make great money and are basically indemnified against failure. They're doing fine. They wanted more, which is fine. But they weren't hurting and there's no evidence the previous deal was hurting the league. The owners just weren't as rich as they wanted to be.
The more accurate analogy is if you're working in a revenue-sharing corporation, and management comes to you in a time of rising revenues and profits and asks you to take a 10% or 20% pay cut so that they can have a bigger share. Would any of you say yes to that deal? Sure, the fact that the players said no to that proposal was part of what caused the lockout, but it's not exactly surprising that they said no, and the fact that they said no doesn't mean they were/are greedy. They're as self-interested as any of us would be.
This is two parties fighting over a pile of money. There's no right or wrong in it. The only thing that's even remotely obnoxious is the owners lying about why they need the extra money. If they'd just come out and admitted that they simply wanted more money for the sake of, well, having more money, this whole thing would be easier to swallow. But to be fair, they needed a pretext to opt out of the lockout, so I suppose it's not surprising that they made one up.
I can easily argue that no one deserves what the players are earning. They put up zero financial risk, they have no part in planning the business strategy for the league or for any team. The players show up and play, and walk away. And then hold out their hands and demand money.
you cannot compare them to rockstars, for bands and singers take all the risks themselves, they write all the music, put up the all the money for everything, and then reap the rewards or lose money.
The only real comparison i can think of is to compare them to actors. And look at that. The number of actors that earn millions can be counted on maybe two hands. The rest of them earn next to nothing.
No one deserves to get payed what the players get paid. To be paid for showing up and not need to worry about any of the business aspects must be nice.
They certainly don't deserve to be paid any percentage of revenue. I mean you have players that literally do nothing, they play 3 or 4 plays a game at most, and yet get paid for that more than most people will see in a few years of real work.
Any of the agreements the owners have given them have been a complete gift. The only real way players should be paid is by performance. Every contract should be 100% incentive based, with players who don't play getting paid minimum wage.
No NFL player should earn millions a year. They assume zero financial risk in any real money earning venture of the business. If their pull is really as great as they claim, let them earn all their money on endorsements.
Please provide the proof that the owners, as a group, are losing profitability, and that such loss is because of the players portion of the pie. Obviously, that proof will need to include a list breaking down all revenues, as well as a list breaking down all expenses.
No. It is none of your business, it is none of the players business. It doesn't need to be proven.
The players get paid too much money. They don't deserve it. The owners take all the financial risks, the NFL comes up with all the ideas to create revenue, the players do nothing but perform. They are overpaid entertainers, nothing more.
The only thing you can claim is the players fill the stadiums on game day. Okay, so give each player that plays $1 for each fan that shows up to a stadium. That is it. The players would still earn more money in one game than most people earn in a year.