Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[townes]

How is it "unfair" when both sides made huge money off of it?

My mistake, it's "unfair" because the owners say so.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

As for debating morality, you said what I was suggesting was "unamerican" which I'm guessing is some form of nationalist morality, so I responded to that. I agree with you that all that matters is to many americans is money and profit and that is now considered "THE AMERICAN WAY." I think that's unfortunate and believe our priorities should be more communal than that and believe society helps all of us succeed, we don't simply do so all by ourselves, although personal efforts certainly play the major role in success and failure none of us operate in a bubble and all of us have a responsibility to the community at large. I think this is especially true of businesses and organizations trhat rely heavily upon government support and the NFL has cedrtainly benefitted greatly from the support of the communities they operate in, and they as such have a responsibility to take more into account when making their decisions than simply their profit margin.

Why do you place all the blame on the owners when the players went the litigation route and put an end to the negotiating?
You come across as supporting a communist idealogy. Labor disputes happen every day, one side is trying to get the best deal they can while the other side is doing the same. Nothing wrong with that, thats part of a free society. We dont know the books so we dont know how much anyone makes, I find it hard that anyone can form an opinion and call someone greedy without this information.

 

[lamafist]

The concept is a part of history, your understanding of it is incorrect.
But go ahead learned one, and cite me all of the precedents where eminant domain has been enforced that would be examples of taking away someones business because they had a labor dispute, or anything even remotely similar.
Your "No, Im right because I say so" attitude is tiresome.

Uh, just read the links I provided in my previous post entitled "Government Seizure in Labor Disputes." Or, you know, learn something about American history, especially during WWII.

And do try to remember that I've said from the start that this isn't something that's likely to ever be applied to football, and that if you find other people being right tiresome, you'd be best off not acting so emphatically certain of things you're wrong about.

 

[lamafist]

Why do you place all the blame on the owners when the players went the litigation route and put an end to the negotiating?
You come across as supporting a communist idealogy. Labor disputes happen every day, one side is trying to get the best deal they can while the other side is doing the same. Nothing wrong with that, thats part of a free society. We dont know the books so we dont know how much anyone makes, I find it hard that anyone can form an opinion and call someone greedy without this information.

The players didn't put an end to negotiations; the players have expressed interest in continuing talks, only through the players' counsel in their lawsuit, because if the decertified NFLPA continued negotiations, that would help build the NFL's case that the decertification is a sham. The owners categorically refuse to deal with the players' counsel, who are at present the only people who can claim to represent the players collectively.

The players chose to begin litigation because they needed to leave as much time as possible for the courts to make a ruling and hear an appeal on their preliminary injunction against the lock-out so they can get back on the field and be ready for next season. The lock-out is entirely voluntary on the owners' part -- they could end it, and the lawsuit, tomorrow if they wanted to, and play out this next season under the rules of the last year of the prior CBA until a new agreement is reached.

The owners choose not to go that route because they feel - correctly - that they'd lack leverage in that situation. While I don't really blame the owners for choosing to lock the players out, I certain don't think you can blame the players for their ad hoc lawsuit to get themselves back on the football field.

Also, I think you are doing the discussion a disservice when you fail to recognize the distinctions between Stalinism, Maoism, Communism proper, Marxism, socialism, a social market economy, liberalism, neoliberalism, etc. Townes has never said anything that indicates that he doesn't believe in a market economy; he and you just differ as to how much policing of the market the government is obligated to do to protect the interests of the majority of citizens. This isn't even remotely Communist. If it were, not only would most of the founding fathers have been Communists, but so would Adam Smith, the supposed father or free market economics, whose moral capitalism included a government watchful of business men, whom he distrusted.

Finally, we know for certain that the owners earned over $4.52 billion dollars in revenue in 2010 after all of the players' money has been paid out. If the NFL's owners can't make it work with $4.52 billion dollars between 32 teams, than I think it's safe to say we're looking at either greed or incompetence.

 

[townes]

Why do you place all the blame on the owners when the players went the litigation route and put an end to the negotiating?
You come across as supporting a communist idealogy. Labor disputes happen every day, one side is trying to get the best deal they can while the other side is doing the same. Nothing wrong with that, thats part of a free society. We dont know the books so we dont know how much anyone makes, I find it hard that anyone can form an opinion and call someone greedy without this information.

I blame the owners because this is what they wanted all along. The owners never made any effort to put together a new agreement and waited until the last second to negotiate at all, and then left the player's a matter of minutes to decide whether they should use the only leverage they had or fold. The owners went way out of their way to set up deals that would guarantee them money for no product and are right now forcing season ticket holders to pony up big money for tickets or lose them despite the FACT that there is no promise of a product. Had the players behaved in the same way and gone on strike i would be saying the same things about them, ironically so would all those currently supporting the owners. Go figure?

 

[townes]

The players didn't put an end to negotiations; the players have expressed interest in continuing talks, only through the players' counsel in their lawsuit, because if the decertified NFLPA continued negotiations, that would help build the NFL's case that the decertification is a sham. The owners categorically refuse to deal with the players' counsel, who are at present the only people who can claim to represent the players collectively.

The players chose to begin litigation because they needed to leave as much time as possible for the courts to make a ruling and hear an appeal on their preliminary injunction against the lock-out so they can get back on the field and be ready for next season. The lock-out is entirely voluntary on the owners' part -- they could end it, and the lawsuit, tomorrow if they wanted to, and play out this next season under the rules of the last year of the prior CBA until a new agreement is reached.

The owners choose not to go that route because they feel - correctly - that they'd lack leverage in that situation. While I don't really blame the owners for choosing to lock the players out, I certain don't think you can blame the players for their ad hoc lawsuit to get themselves back on the football field.

Also, I think you are doing the discussion a disservice when you fail to recognize the distinctions between Stalinism, Maoism, Communism proper, Marxism, socialism, a social market economy, liberalism, neoliberalism, etc. Townes has never said anything that indicates that he doesn't believe in a market economy; he and you just differ as to how much policing of the market the government is obligated to do to protect the interests of the majority of citizens. This isn't even remotely Communist. If it were, not only would most of the founding fathers have been Communists, but so would Adam Smith, the supposed father or free market economics, whose moral capitalism included a government watchful of business men, whom he distrusted.

Finally, we know for certain that the owners earned over $4.52 billion dollars in revenue in 2010 after all of the players' money has been paid out. If the NFL's owners can't make it work with $4.52 billion dollars between 32 teams, than I think it's safe to say we're looking at either greed or incompetence.

Right on the money, well said, and that's coming from a communist dictator who wants to take everyones SUV's and women.


Well, off to work for the next 4 days, after all I do have a country to run and my people to suppress.


Keep up the good fight.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I disagree about the NFL being very popular without the current players. Yes, a single player is replaceable but not all of them in my opinion. There would be a dramatic dropoff in play if the NFL didn't have any of the current players which would effect fan interest.

Looking back to 1987 when the NFL played with replacement players the attendance and viewership were all down. Given how heavily the NFL relys on fantasy football for interest I think that would take a huge hit as well since I don't believe most people would want to draft teams of replacement players.

If it were the case that any talent level of football is popular I think you would have seen other football leagues be more successful such as the XFL or USFL. The XFL couldn't even get people to watch for free.

I agree with you if you're saying that this is a replacement player situation. I was trying to posit a situation where these players weren't there to play anymore for reasons other than not wanting to play in the NFL as constituted.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I don't harbor any hate toward the rich, just towards the greedy.

Are you positing that the players are any less greedy than the owners?

It would be nice if there was some balance in your posts (some of which I've attempted to provide in this thread) but I guess it may never happen. At least, I haven't seen any evidence of it recently. But I am an optimist.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You misunderstand. Of course the players, owners, coaches, league executives, trainers, groundskeepers, et al. are going to benefit from the combined success of the NFL over the past decades. This is what happens when a business grows in value the way the NFL has.

But however you feel the credit for the NFL's success should be awarded amongst these groups, it really has no bearing on how the current proceeds should be divvied up.

I'm not sure that I totally agree that it is irrelevant why they are as successful as they are, but I see your position.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If the pun on "eminent domain" was intended, than very well played, indeed.

I can only wish I was that quick-minded.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The owners offered to have an independent auditor come in and confirm their claims and figures and the NFLPA said no. Why does everyone gloss over that when they are trying to make their arguments that the owners are lying greedy criminals?

I agree that this is pretty significant and has been either downplayed or ignored by a lot of people. Of course, it makes perfect sense from an historical point of view. Unions want financial information not because they desire to "justly" distribute the revenue; they want information so that they can win the PR battle and force concessions from ownership.

So, getting second-hand, audited information about profits won't accomplish their objectives which is why Smith categorized it as worthless. For thinking people, the union just lost this PR battle because they effectively said that they have no desire for a "just" distribution of revenue. Of course, both sides desire to maximize their own money at the expense of the other but the union can no longer realistically claim (at least in this thinking man's opinion) that they want this information for justice to prevail.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Uh, yes, it is how this country operates, when deemed necessary. It's called eminent domain.

Just to be clear, eminent domain can only be used by a government body to accomplish something that can't realistically be accomplished by other reasonable means. Applying this to football teams is truly out in left field. I'm saddened that people would even think that the government could have powers like this. I'm sure our Founding Fathers would be as well.

 

[lamafist]

Just to be clear, eminent domain can only be used by a government body to accomplish something that can't realistically be accomplished by other reasonable means. Applying this to football teams is truly out in left field. I'm saddened that people would even think that the government could have powers like this. I'm sure our Founding Fathers would be as well.

Not really. In recent vintage, the US Supreme Court has upheld the acts of state and municipal governments to claim privately owned land from its owners to then sell to developers to build shopping malls and Walmarts -- hardly something that can't and isn't being accomplished by other means all the time. Its widely been used throughout US history to force buy outs of private utilities companies by local governments not because the private utility was failing to perform their function, but because the municipalities felt the long-term interests of the communities were better served by publicly controlled utility providers. I'm pretty sure most of this is discussed in the links I provided.

I was also careful to make clear in every post touching on eminent domain that I couldn't really imagine a scenario when it would ever be applied to the NFL.

As for the founding fathers, sorry, but they considered themselves progressive just for insisting that the government not take private property "for public use, without just compensation" in the 5th amendment. As British colonials, they were used to laws of eminent domain from the Magna Carta and later that didn't even require that the crown or parliament compensate people they deprived of property.

 

[lamafist]

I agree that this is pretty significant and has been either downplayed or ignored by a lot of people. Of course, it makes perfect sense from an historical point of view. Unions want financial information not because they desire to "justly" distribute the revenue; they want information so that they can win the PR battle and force concessions from ownership.

So, getting second-hand, audited information about profits won't accomplish their objectives which is why Smith categorized it as worthless. For thinking people, the union just lost this PR battle because they effectively said that they have no desire for a "just" distribution of revenue. Of course, both sides desire to maximize their own money at the expense of the other but the union can no longer realistically claim (at least in this thinking man's opinion) that they want this information for justice to prevail.

I don't think the unions ever claimed to want financial information for any reasons involving justice. They want financial disclosure so as to be able to judge for themselves whether the owners' offers are something they want to accept or not. Towards this end, the audited review of the information the owners have already offered the NFLPA really isn't worth all that much. So far, the only franchise-specific information the owners have offered is a single number scoring the profitability of each franchise.

The independent auditor would verify this numbers' accuracy, which is not what's in contention. The NFLPA felt they needed more detailed information about the franchise's spending and revenues contracts to insure that the revenues are being maximized and the credit deductions that took $1 billion off the top of the CBA aren't bloated. I think the players demands of ten years of audited complete financial statements is certainly overkill, and that there is room in the middle for the two sides to meet on the sharing of financial information.

As for De Maurice Smith's intentions with the documents, I doubt that using them to smear the owners and win the PR battle is on his mind. For one thing, this case is going to be settled in a court other than the one of public opinion. Winning the PR battle just isn't valuable enough to justify the kind of tent-peg status Smith has put on disclosure. Secondly, any financial information the NFL turned over to the union could and would be subject to a binding non-disclosure agreement that would cost the union dearly if it were broken. How much is the data worth in the PR battle if he can't comment on any of its specifics?

 

[peterforpats]

I agree that this is pretty significant and has been either downplayed or ignored by a lot of people. Of course, it makes perfect sense from an historical point of view. Unions want financial information not because they desire to "justly" distribute the revenue; they want information so that they can win the PR battle and force concessions from ownership.

So, getting second-hand, audited information about profits won't accomplish their objectives which is why Smith categorized it as worthless. For thinking people, the union just lost this PR battle because they effectively said that they have no desire for a "just" distribution of revenue. Of course, both sides desire to maximize their own money at the expense of the other but the union can no longer realistically claim (at least in this thinking man's opinion) that they want this information for justice to prevail.

of course a true audit and disclosure would hurt the owners- they dont want anybody to see what they claim as expenses; the family salaries, the jet rides for "business", the expenses to entertain the politicos and friends. if i owned a team i wouldn't want anybody to see how i
"cook" the books.but i also couldn't claim the moral high ground that's why the union asks for this info, it is a winner for them in the pr battle. they know they will never see the true financials- it is just to put pressure for a better deal. more power to them, i always root for the workers over the owners and hope they get as much as they can. in the end , the players pay the real price for playing and using their bodies for our pleasure. besides , in america, the rich are getting richer regardless. they have bought and paid for their politicians and they will prevail.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I blame the owners because this is what they wanted all along. The owners never made any effort to put together a new agreement and waited until the last second to negotiate at all, and then left the player's a matter of minutes to decide whether they should use the only leverage they had or fold. The owners went way out of their way to set up deals that would guarantee them money for no product and are right now forcing season ticket holders to pony up big money for tickets or lose them despite the FACT that there is no promise of a product. Had the players behaved in the same way and gone on strike i would be saying the same things about them, ironically so would all those currently supporting the owners. Go figure?

I dont support the owners though, they're just as much to blame as the NFLPA. I just dont understand how with the limited information that has been leaked out how anyone can call either side greedy. We dont know the expenses, Im sure they're much higher than most would guess.
I think the notion of the government taking over teams because your upset is silly whether anyone wants to call it communism, maoism socialism etc.

 

[Ring 6]

How is it "unfair" when both sides made huge money off of it?

The owners deemed it unfair by opting out.
Just because both sides make money does not mean the deal was fair.

Andy, you seem to believe the owners are the aggrieved party,

Where have I said that? I said the owners have a right to run their business.
If your rules suddenly became allowed in this country and the businesses they own were taken from them, then they would be 'aggrieved'.

I don't agree and feel they have made huge money, as have the players, and had the players opted out and gone on strike for more I would be calling them greedy, ironically so would you and all the others who support the owners.

I am not supporting either side. IT may seem that way because you are so blindly on the players side. I don't consider either side greedy, I think both are simply doing what they need to do. I see no difference between a lockout or a strike, because in eiter case both sides failed.

As for debating morality, you said what I was suggesting was "unamerican" which I'm guessing is some form of nationalist morality,

Wow, you take this way too personally. Let me explain.
Your OPINION that the government should step in and take away ownership from the owners of the team is unAmerican. It is not the capitalist, entreprenuerial methodology that this country is founded and thrives on. It is very Communist in its basis.
That does not mean I think you are unAmerican, it means I think your idea is foolish.

so I responded to that. I agree with you that all that matters is to many americans is money and profit and that is now considered "THE AMERICAN WAY."

You arent agreeing with me by saying that because I have not said it.

I think that's unfortunate and believe our priorities should be more communal than that and believe society helps all of us succeed, we don't simply do so all by ourselves, although personal efforts certainly play the major role in success and failure none of us operate in a bubble and all of us have a responsibility to the community at large. I think this is especially true of businesses and organizations trhat rely heavily upon government support and the NFL has cedrtainly benefitted greatly from the support of the communities they operate in, and they as such have a responsibility to take more into account when making their decisions than simply their profit margin.

I think you are applying the human personality traits you wish (correctly) to see to a business. A businessman who fights hard to do the best job he can and maximize profits, then turns around and donates a sinificant amount to charity, is involved in his community, church etc, is not a greedy bastard only concerned about money, he is a person who is able to succeed in many ways. Bob Kraft appears to be a good example of this, and I think if you take off the blinders you would see that most owners do as well.

 

[Ring 6]

Uh, just read the links I provided in my previous post entitled "Government Seizure in Labor Disputes." Or, you know, learn something about American history, especially during WWII.

And do try to remember that I've said from the start that this isn't something that's likely to ever be applied to football, and that if you find other people being right tiresome, you'd be best off not acting so emphatically certain of things you're wrong about.

The links are not relevant. Public safety and War Time Efforts have absolutely nothing to do with suggesting that the Federal Government should take away a business from the owners because there is a labor dispute that the fans do not like. They are not even in the same vicinity.

I do not find you being right tiresome, because you are mostly wrong throughout this topic. What is tiresome is you telling everyone you are right because you have decided you are right. And it keeps getting worse by the way.

 

[lamafist]

The links are not relevant. Public safety and War Time Efforts have absolutely nothing to do with suggesting that the Federal Government should take away a business from the owners because there is a labor dispute that the fans do not like. They are not even in the same vicinity.

I do not find you being right tiresome, because you are mostly wrong throughout this topic. What is tiresome is you telling everyone you are right because you have decided you are right. And it keeps getting worse by the way.

Seriously, dude, did I have to specify that it's hard to imagine the government applying eminent domain to take over NFL franchises more than once in every post for it to penetrate your consciousness? Or are you just pretending that have only been objecting to the specific application to the NFL when I made it perfectly clear that I was replying to your general statement that the US government doesn't forcibly buy out private businesses and make them public, when, in fact, its authority to do so is clearly derived from the 5th amendment to the constitution, under the condition that it provides compensation. Just stop, ok? You only make it worse when you keep digging yourself in deeper.

 

[Ring 6]

Seriously, dude, did I have to specify that it's hard to imagine the government applying eminent domain to take over NFL franchises more than once in every post for it to penetrate your consciousness?

The very point you are arguing for is that someone suggested that it is viable, and I said it is not, when you decided to jump in and misuse eminent domain.

Or are you just pretending that have only been objecting to the specific application to the NFL when I made it perfectly clear that I was replying to your general statement that the US government doesn't forcibly buy out private businesses and make them public, when, in fact, its authority to do so is clearly derived from the 5th amendment to the constitution, under the condition that it provides compensation. Just stop, ok? You only make it worse when you keep digging yourself in deeper.

Once again, when you are wrong you redefine what you really meant.
I don't know what conversation you were having, but no one else here was talking about war time government intervention or public safety issues.