The NFLPA just pissed on our cornflakes
by CLF on Mar 11, 2011 8:36 PM EST
Email
PrintFrom this proposal and obvious lack of cooperation from the NFLPA... the CBA will now be decided in court.
http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/exclusive-summary-of-nfl-proposal-to-nflpa
After reading this proposal, it is obvious that the Owners made considerable concessions and adjustments to where they stood prior to last year.
After hearing the NFLPA's response to why they decertified... it is obvious that they had no intentions of bargaining, no intentions of signing a deal, and no good intentions with regards to negotiations.
Its a sad day for the NFL.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pride of Detroit or its writers. FanPosts are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable fans.
109 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
the proposal looked a lot better then i had anticipated.
What’s the specific point the nflpa didn’t like?
If you spell Ndamukong Suh in Scrabble, you win. Forever...
by DetroitDrew1980 on Mar 11, 2011 8:43 PM EST via mobile reply actions
10 years of financials or nothing
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
Can't blame them there
Hard to get an honest deal from a business without open books.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Mar 11, 2011 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
Owners gave them the last 5.
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
I don't think that's the case
They got the difference down from $1 Billion to 600K, so I believe the owners last proposal was to split the remaining 600K.
Couldn't be farther off CLF
The players were asked to give up $1 billion in the beginning by the owners. This is the controlling issue of the CBA. The rookie pay scale, health benefits, etc. are all issues that even though they have strong feelings about, aren’t the main issue. It’s about the money. For years, Gene Upshaw preached to the players when they would get more money in the CBAs, to never give it back or they’d never get another dime form the owners. And now the owners asked for $1 billion back in the CBA. And even though they did give up some ground, any ground in the players’ eyes is going to require some strong evidence that there is sufficient need for them to give some back. If you think about it, it’s the equivalent of your boss at work telling you this year that you aren’t getting a raise, but a pay cut, wouldn’t you be questioning it? The players now, didn’t say, “no way, we won’t give you any back for any reason,” or anything close. They demanded that the owners show them 10 years worth of audited business records to prove there is profit decline. The owners have long been accused of hiding their true profits from players and the public because they always refuse to open the books for any reason. Colin Cowherd discusses it quite frequently. So the players are simply asking to see profit decline, and they’d be willing to give money back based on how much decline there is. They want more than the owners simply SAYING they have profit decline, because really, they could just be saying they’re hurting when they aren’t. I mean the NFL continues to grow, so why aren’t profits growing, or at least staying the same for the owners? It’s the million dollar question that can’t be answered without the books. My guess is the owners cave before opening any books other than the Packers, which have already been released (and still show profit, however twice as less as 10 years ago), and whose profits are minimized due to it being publicly owned (duh).
So is it really the players shitting in our cornflakes? Or is it owners painting the players in a false light? My guess is the latter.
Wrong....
Read the proposal…. Plus the owners opted out of the last cba as their right. Above is a very balanced compromised by the owners.
What you will not find is a counter offer by the nflpa.
If the nflpa was serious about negotiation, there would’ve been an extension.
There is no excuse.
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
by CLF on Mar 11, 2011 10:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Why would they counter
if they aren’t willing to show them the books as proof of profit loss, why should the players be willing to give back any money to the owners?
because the owners are not required to show their books
In the last labor dispute in the NBA, the owners opened their book and nothing good resulted from it. Look at the situation in the NBA today. Teams are still bleeding money.
Opening the books is not going to do anything for the players.
Bottom line, the players never intended to negotiate. They never made any sort of counter offers. They just sat there and said, No.
That is not negotiating. Smith needs to look the word up in the dictionary.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
You're completely wrong CLF/Joshsun
A) no the owners aren’t required to open the books.
B) the players aren’t required to take a pay cut as the owners are asking.
c) the NBA books are just utterly useless. the nba IS SHIT. the nfl makes money. so the books are far more important in the NFL. It’s called transparency. IF you ask me to take a pay cut, you better damn well be able to show me why…which is what the players asked.
d) Why would the players want to make a counter proposal? The old CBA was fine in their eyes. The owners opted out, not the players. It’s the owners’ burden to ensure there is a fair deal in-place for next season, not the players.
e) You truly believe the players should be taking pay cuts????!!!! Sounds absurd to me. Sounded absurd to every single former and active player in the NFLs history. Maybe listen to interviews about the subject.
They are lucky to get 5 years
There is no moral or legal obligation to do so. The owners do not even share their books with one another.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
They did NOT give 5 years worth
They offered 5 years of a few financial statements. That’s far from opening the books. Every other real union has access to the company’s books, why not the union? And the burden is still on the owners here.
That is called compromising in negotiations
Something you can the NFLPA seem to not understand.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
That's called backhandedness and awe tactics
You are a fish on the end of the NFL owners fishing line. They throw this shit out there for uneducated fans to eat up, knowing they’re stupid enough to believe it. Congrats, that;s you.
I am looking at what happened so far
The owners made concessions from their desires. The players did not.
Who was negotiating in good faith again? The owners. Its called a negotiation for a reason.
As for uneducated fans. I am not one of them. Keep throwing out your insults. I will keep pointing out that your are wrong without lowering myself to your level with personal attacks.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
The players should not control the league
Period.
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
by CLF on Mar 12, 2011 4:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Explain to me
How this is negotiation.
“Okay, you guys work two more days, take a billion less dollars, and have less job security while we cut back starting salaries and revamp free agency.”
“Uh… well, no. But how about you open the books and we’ll talk about it?”
“What? No no no no. How about this, we’ll only take 800 million away from you and we’ll give you more of the free agency you guys want.”
“No. Open the books and show me how this is necessary.”
“Okay fine, we won’t make you work the two extra games, and we’ll take a little bit off the amount we’re taking away from you.”
“Okay, you don’t want to open the books. We’re willing to split the amount half and half that you want, so you’d get 500 million extra.”
“WHY AREN’T YOU GUYS NEGOTIATING OMG.”
It’s absurd. Neither side is comprimising. Offering to cut your head off and then “settling” for cutting off your arm is not negotiating, it’s Looney Toons style bait and switch.
It is called negotiation 101
You come into the negotiations with high requests, knowing full well you will not get them all, and try to find a middle ground with the other party.
How is this so difficult to understand?
The only party negotiating is the Owners. The players laid out ultimatums they had not legal or moral right to ask for and walked away when they did not get them. They knew the league would not provide them. They knew they would walk away. They wanted litigation from the beginning and only walked the walk to look good in the public and courts eyes.
Well, they have it now and they are going to be sorry in the end.
Smith is walking them down a road they are going to regret.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
The Players have a simple request
if the Owners want to take the Player’s money, the Players want proof, simple as that. The owners were the catalysts for this, and the players aren’t obligated to negotiate “in good faith” when the other side is essentially asking for the world.
Neither side has been negotiating in good faith. The owners cancelled the current CBA full well expecting to ask for too much and get less, but didn’t expect the players to put up a fight when the owners are trying to take the money away from the other side? Sounds like poor planning.
nice twist
Players salaries that have grown exponentially are the catalyst for this.
They need to be reined in. Its as simple as that.
I do not want the NFL to turn into the MLB or even worse, the NBA.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
It’s the owners’ burden to ensure there is a fair deal in-place for next season, not the players.
and that is why the owners opted out.
The NBA is a perfect example of what happens when player salaries escalate out of control and that is happening in the NFL. The owners have every right to protect their long term investment.
Negotiation is a process where both sides make concessions to end with a final decision. The only party here negotiating has been the owners. Typical of any negotiation, the owners came in with a high number that they no doubt knew they would have to come down from and they did. How did the players respond? By not giving anything. Instead, they dug in their heels and walked away.
Opting out of the deal was the right of either party. That clause was put in place to allow one side or the other to reevaluate their situation and move to change things if needed. Once the CBA was opted out, both sides needed to make concessions.
Only one side did.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
You are insanely wrong
Yes negotiations require both sides to give concessions where they are needed, however, HOW THE F CAN WE KNOW WHAT CONCESSIONS NEED TO BE MADE WITHOUT SOME SORT OF INFORMATION???? It takes information to make an informed decision. The owners are not negotiating. They’re playing the Republican blame game and not making any serious proposals. The proposals they’ve pulled outta their ass so far have been just that, shit.
by JFisch on Mar 12, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The owners offered 5 years of bottom line information
The NLFPA knew going in they were never going to see open books and made it known that they would not agree to anything without them.
They never intended to negotiate in good faith. Litigation was their intention from day one.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
LOL
wow you’re bullheaded – can’t explain this to someone without the mental capacity.
I am not the one that cant google for himself.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
I have to disagree
The owners are coming to the players and asking for an extra $1 Billion of revenue up front after already getting $1 Billion, before the remaining $7 Billion is split evenly because they say their profits are decreasing. Maybe their profit margin is decreasing, but if I’m the players I’m not willing to give up that much money unless I see full detailed financial records from the owners. The owners are basically asking the players g to give up $500K, which is roughly 12-15% of their money with out proving it.
Some high level financial records won’t show the yearly trends for teams or allow the players to see where the owners spend their money and how it affects their bottom line. How can the players trust the owners after a judge just ruled the “NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players” by putting a clause in the tv deal to get money set aside for the owners in case of a lockout? Maybe the owners profits are actually increasing and the players deserve more money?
DeMaurice Smith says it best….http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81eb9450/Players-Football-is-in-good-hands
Everyone knows Judge Doty is a NFLPA lacky
and always has been.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
He has ruled for the players in almost ever instance placed before him.
Do the research yourself if you do not know the history.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
Show me court rulings or link them.
Don’t just splurt out whatever comes outta your backside.
do the reseasrch yourself
I have lived it. I was around to see the rulings Doty has held against the NFL in the years.
If you have not, that is not my problem.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
did you really just type that instead of just google searching for yourself?
As I said before, I lived it. He is biased. Everyone, other than you apparently, knows this fact.
BTW, name calling gets you nothing with me. I am above that.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
Almost every instance
Doesn’t really imply a bias. Obviously, one side is going to be correct more than the other.
It clearly implies a bias
This is not a simple situation when it goes to court. To say one side is correct so much more often than the other is just silly. Doty is a union supporter.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
no, it does not
it does on the other hand require fairness in litigation which the owners have not received from this biased judge.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
I ask for proof.
In your eyes, name one case that you feel has been unlawfully judged? I haven’t seen one yet. It’s not a bias if the ruling is in the basis of law.
he has a long and well earned reputation for being union friendly
I am amazed you have not read this already as much as I know you read about the team and what I would think you are reading on this subject.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
hell man, they even mention his bias on ESPN
Which has been rather pro player in their coverage so far.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
I have read on the subject.
I was asking, in your opinion, what cases do you feel were judged under bias? Not just a perceived lean in favor of players, but an oversight in statutory limits and precedent.
I ask this, because most of the things I’ve seen seemed fairly judged. Even the Vick case. I can understand it was ethically incorrect, but legally? There’s a reason it was upheld in appeals court. Unless the appellate court is equally as guilty of bias in your eyes?
It has been a long time man
the situations do not come to mind at the moment. If they do, I will respond here but I do remember thinking he was biased on more than one occasion.
On a completely different subject, one of your statements is one of hte problems I have with our law. Shouldn’t Ethical guidelines be one of the foundations of law?
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
Sure.
It should be one of the foundations of law, but just because something is perceived as unethical or amoral doesn’t necessarily mean it should take precedent over all other facets of law.
Caveat emptor — write better contracts with your players, and negotiate better with the players association so that players involved in criminal acts don’t get to keep bonuses. Contract law is there for a reason, if ethics could just trump signed contracts it would be a fiasco. Not to mention specific definitions of moral rectitude vary from one place to another.
No
The previous deal ended and a new one needs to be negotiated…a key word the nflpa doesn’t seem to get.
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
by CLF on Mar 11, 2011 10:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I agree it needs to be negotiated
Just because the owners made the last offer it doesn’t mean the players weren’t negotiating. The players made many offers through out this process as well. From a players perspective, isn’t it very odd that the owners say they’re profits are decreasing yet they aren’t willing to provide the data to back it up? If I’m the players I’m not giving up a good chunk of my money with out the owners giving me full disclosure to their financial records. That’s a deal breaker in this negotiation from the players perspective.
by Stones1981 on Mar 11, 2011 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Bottom line is...
The NFLPA pushed away from the table…. not the owners.
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
So it's who ever makes the last offer is the good guy?
Bottom line is the owners started this process when they opted out of the deal a couple years ago. The last offer from the owners is much worse for the players then their current deal. If the owners really wanted to get a fail deal done they would show the players their financial records that prove they are really seeing declines in their profit margin.
by Stones1981 on Mar 11, 2011 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So it’s who ever makes the last offer is the good guy?
No, the side that is actually Negotiating is the good guy.
Not the side that has refused to move an inch during the entire process.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
So...
“Let me take a billion dollars away from you…”
“Why? Show me why this is necessary.”
“Okay fine, forget the books. Let me only take 800 million dollars away from you.”
That’s negotiating? Don’t be absurd.
absurd?
Give us what we want or we are walking away from the table.
THAT is absurd. That is what they players said. That is not negotiating.
You always start a negotiation with room to move to the other parties direction. It is called negotiation.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
Wrong.
It’s not give us what we want. The players are saying, “give us the books and we’ll LET YOU take money away from us.”
Until the books are opened, the players are remaining with “give us what we HAVE or we are walking away from the table.”
its funny
The NBA players asked the same thing before their last CBA and look how that turned out.
It is not going to change anything or help. they players asked for something they knew before hand the owners would never give to them in hopes to rush the process to courts.
They have not done anything but demand. That is not negotiating.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
The owners have done nothing but demand as well.
Changing your demands from one exorbitant demand to another is not negotiation either. It requires cooperation from both sides, and neither side has done so, it’s just a bunch of posturing and PR moves. The players have been pursuing litigation as hard as the owners have been pursuing a lockout. It’s a farce, and it’s a slap in the face to true football fans everywhere, and I am extremely disappointed in both sides of this issue.
that extension took an agreement from both sides
The owners allowed an extension as much as the players did.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
The extension required transparency which the owners weren't willing to do
That’s the bottom line. By your wrongfully f-ed up logic CLF and JSun (that the person at the table still is the good guy), the NFLPA would be the good guys. They offered a week extension. The owners denied it. They walked away. Not the players. The players said they’d extend it if audited books (completely logical tool to negotiate with) were provided to review. Owners weren’t willing, because they’re making out like bandits. That’s the bottom line.
No, flat out wrong
The owners have no legal or moral obligation to provide any proof of their financial situation.
The players did not offer another week extension. The players walked away from the table. They asked for information they have no right asking for, none.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
Yes they did douche
Are you friggin retarded? Look everywhere. The players offered another week for 10 years of audited books. Owners walked away. And yes, once again, like I’m explaining this to a child or someone with amnesia, NO THE OWNERS DON’t HAVE TO SHOW THE BOOKS, and also the players don’t have to give up a dime. I’m done explaining this to you. You must not have the mental capacity to handle this debate.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/11/union-labor/index.html – read it moron
The players knew they were not going to get what they were asking for.
The owners have no obligation to provide anything the players are asking for. NONE.
That is not negotiating in good faith. That is walking away while feeding the public the impression of “trying”. The players walked away as soon as they started making “THIS OR NOTHING” demands. That is not negotiating.
Keep it up with the personal attacks, you only show your true self.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
The Owners have no right asking for their partnership to take less money either.
So that is the onus of negotiation. They both need to give something. As of right now, the only thing the owners are giving is a good, old fashioned bend over. Neither side is negotiating in good faith.
the owners have every right to protect their sort and long term invenstment.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
The players have every right to protect their collectively bargained rights.
Hence the standoff. Neither side is right in this.
both sides are wrong, I agree
I just see the owners as the lesser of two evils.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
don't blame NFLPA here
of course they did—owners compelled them to push away from table. this is how it works.
both parties should do what is best in their own interest here.
Hmmmm
Call me a skeptic, but the NFL can post whatever it wants on its website and that includes fudged details of their proposal. Kind of an odd release considering it was decided there would be a media blackout on this whole thing and this on the NFL website.. There just seems to be too many concessions too early on in this process for me to believe this is actually where the league is at.
Fan of the Detroit Tigers, Lions and Red Wings.
huh?
This wasn’t released until the NFLPA decertified, therefore walking away from negotiations and turning to litigation.
DOH!
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
Yes.
But what stops the NFL from fudging around with the details of the “last offer” as a PR move in an attempt to dissuade the court of public opinion to their side? The NFL and NFLPA have frequently been dishing out conflicting stories and backslaps at eachother through this entire process.
by Mavyrk on Mar 12, 2011 4:13 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Gotta agree...
Based on what’s out there for us to see, the offer by the owners is more than I expected. Certainly it shows movement from initial position. So far, I have not seen movement from NFLPA.
I don’t really care which group of millionaires is wrong. And, I am certain that fans do not have all the info to determine that.
Bottom line is:
As I fan, I feel betrayed and helpless. The amount of money that has poured into both groups of these millionaires is almost obscene. If you think about what problems could be solved in our country with the amount of money given this sport over the last 10 years…
But, apparently, this isn’t enough.
I will not watch any coverage of the draft, or the draft itself unless this thing is solved by then.
This is the key phrase
Based on what’s out there for us to see, the offer by the owners is more than I expected. Certainly it shows movement from initial position. So far, I have not seen movement from NFLPA
The owners initial position isn’t the current agreement. Their initial position was for the players to give them an extra $1 Billion. Yes, they’ve made concessions from their initial position but their final proposal is still a lot worse then the current deal for the players.
How so?
How is this worse than current position? Please explain point by point from link. This is not a challenge, but an honest request.
The main difference is the owners
are asking to increase their percentage of the money the league makes so the players would be getting less compared to the just expired deal. The owners may have backed down from their initial position of an extra $1 billion but they are still asking the players to give up money in their final proposal.
Their concession matches the NFLPA's demands...
in a 4 year time period…
How is that not better?
Motown313-"spending a first rounder on the next Jared Devries doesn’t seem like a good gameplan."
It doesn't match the NFLPA's demands
The NFLPA’s demands include seeing the full records from the owners books. They are being asked to give up hundreds of millions of dollars with out seeing any proof.
maybe im looking at it too simple but
If I asked the owner of my restaurant that I wanted a share of his companies profits, he would laugh at me and tell me to get back to work. The players are paid very well for their services. Why should they receive part of the owners profits? Guess what, if they buy their own NFL franchise then they’ll receive their own profits.
by Home in Cleveland, Heart in Detroit on Mar 11, 2011 11:21 PM EST via mobile reply actions
and how much value do you contribute to your restaurant?
Would there still be consumers if you left? Are they solely there because of you?
Now if you answered, almost all of the value comes from me, there would be no cosumers, and yes it is me they are all here for….and THEN your owner asks you to take a HUGE pay cut when he’s primed to make more money than ever off of you….and you would just tuck your tail between your legs and get back to scrubbing…wow, weak!
"His lateral agility is unprecedented. Reports claim he has literally been seen in two places at once."- Mav
our system has really done a great job at stomping all of the self-worth out of us
using shock and awe tactics…we’re like an abused child…
"His lateral agility is unprecedented. Reports claim he has literally been seen in two places at once."- Mav
Huh? As an egoist my self-worth is higher than most
Shock and awe tactics? Not sure what you’re referring to but I was just trying to make a simply metaphor that people can relate to so I can understand the situation from the average person’s point of view.
by Home in Cleveland, Heart in Detroit on Mar 12, 2011 12:37 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Or at least what I place my worth in relation to others
by Home in Cleveland, Heart in Detroit on Mar 12, 2011 12:43 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Are you part of a union? Because every union has access to the books.
Ask teachers unions, or county unions, or any other real union in this country. They have complete access to the books. So why shouldn’t the NFLPA?
My owner already pays me a fair amount
I understand that the owners want to take profits away from the players they already agreed to give them. They did have the option to opt out of the cba which they did. What I’m saying is the players should have never been given any portion of the profits in the first place since they are already being paid handsomely. Then again some companies do offer stock options as a benefit and in that regard if the players receive a percentage of the profits each year, then if profits are decreasing for owners so should the amount players receive. With this in mind, I can understand the players wanting to see the books so it can be proven to them there are less profits. Hmm, guess I can understand both sides to a certain extent.
by Home in Cleveland, Heart in Detroit on Mar 12, 2011 12:29 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Except...
You’re putting a division between the “profit” and the “paid handsomely”. It’s the same thing. The owners want the amount of money that goes to the players to be smaller overall, therefore decreasing pay. It isn’t about profit sharing or whatever, it’s about setting up the minimum and maximum caps for teams, and how much the NFL is allowed to take “off the top”.
It’s like if I have 100 dollars for my business and set aside 50 dollars to pay employees for 16 hours of work a week, and then decide to have my employees work 2 extra hours of work a week while simultaenously setting aside only 40 dollars to pay employees now. That is essentially what has the players angry, not any perceived off the top profit sharing.
Then get a new job! If u don't like where u work find somewhere else.
This is crazy since when does the employee control the profits?
by LeyandsMarlboros on Mar 12, 2011 9:22 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Not so in this case.
The owners ditched the 18 game schedule in their final proposal. They also reduced the OTA’s, limited the number of practices in training camp to one a day, reduced the work week from 5 days to 4 between games. So by your own assertion the players should be taking less in the new CBA because they are working less now.
The owners also reduced the rookies salaries and agreed to use it to pay veterans, something the players were adament about. Increased the salary caps and placed a minimum cap on the clubs at 90%. Something the players were adament about.
Seems to me the players are getting everything they want…but it boils down to the fact they want more of the owners money.
No.
They want more of their own money. The money currently going to the owners in that offer is the PLAYER’S money, not the owner’s. That’s why the CBA is being renegotiated.
And don’t give me that crap about an 18 game schedule got dropped. It’s the equivalent of offering to cut off your arm and your leg so that the business we’re working on, but when you cry foul at that we’ll agree JUST to cut your leg off. It’s absurd. Neither side is the good guy in this.
good guy - bad guy
this is business, guys. you can spend all day demonizing each side but this is just a business deal and there is a lot of money on the line here so don’t hold your breath waiting for this to get sorted out. no surprises here.
that 18 game thing is exactly what it was…no way could we move to 18 games. the quality already suffers from 16 games.
Thanks Mav
That’s the sorta basic concept I’m trying to understand since I’m not familiar with all of the #s and legality of the cba.
by Home in Cleveland, Heart in Detroit on Mar 12, 2011 12:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
restaurant workers are not equivalent to world-class athletes
not in terms of skills. the players are paid very well for there services, but they are probably worth more as they are not replaceable. these are the best football players in the world. in their position I would fight to get every dollar I could. every other party involved is doing the same thing here. i’m sure the owners are over-payed.
How much less money will Matt Stafford make in 2011, if the NFLPA tucks its tail between its legs?
Seriously, how much?
They got the difference to 600 mil and offered to split the difference. So 300 million
Do you honestly think if they had gotten a deal done that the NFL and all its loyal fans would not have caused the NFL to bring in 500 million more in profits over the next year or two…. 500 million in more profits * the 59.5 % that the players receive of the remaining would have made up the difference in just a couple years…. Just stupid. That was a great deal they turned down.
I'm not gonna pretend to undertand most of this business talk
Far too complicated…
RIP Robyn Bailey 1961 - 2010. I love you mum.
Spot on CLF
This is the Motor City. And this is what we do...
P.C.P ... Now with a Richer, and Bolder flavor
I wish the fans could sit at the negotiation table as a 3rd party and ask for lower ticket prices!!!!!
Bet their azz would talk differently if the fans united and told them we wanted a bigger piece of the pie….lower ticket prices….lower parking….lower playoff prices…..lower consessions!!!! Heck they get paid from us and so there for we could call the shots…we need a NFLFA (National Football League Fans Assication)
Detroit Lions Mock Draft
1. Jimmy Smith CB Colorado
2. Bruce Carter LB North Carolina
3. Robert Sands S West Vir
4. Austin Pettis WR Boise State
5. Allen Bradford RB USC
wow i really seriously can't type
Detroit Lions Mock Draft
1. Jimmy Smith CB Colorado
2. Bruce Carter LB North Carolina
3. Robert Sands S West Vir
4. Austin Pettis WR Boise State
5. Allen Bradford RB USC
NFLPA* press release Friday:
"Any agreement reached from this point forward with the NFL will be as a result of the court system, not a collective bargaining agreement."
They got what they wanted all along. They never wanted to negotiate in good faith. They wanted it to go to the court. Expect the NFL to challenge the NFLPA’s attempt to decertify based on their lack of action, cooperation of any sort in the negotiations and on comments just like this one.
Smith is pushing the players wagon to an area he does not want to go and he is going to end up regretting it.
I like Wins, Cheese and I also Like Cookies. If you don't. Wow. :P
to hell with both sides they should have done adeal the players and nfl are fools they were macking a hell alot to play football and nfl was macking money .now no one will mack money ?. BUT A WHOLE LOT OF FANS WILL HAVE MONEY IN THIER HANDS NOW AND THEY JUST MIGHT FIND WAYS TO SPEAD THAT MONEY SOME PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT HAVE DEAL WITH A BUNCH OF FOOLS SAY MAYBEE COLLAGE SPORTS OR HOCKEY OR WE FANS JUST MIGHT HOLD OUR OWEN LOCK OUT AND KEEP OUR OWEN DAM MONEY IN OUR OWEN POCKETS .
I'm with ya K-Dub
I, for one, won’t spend a damn dollar on Official NFL anything until they get this resolved, as putting money in the owner’s pockets while they’re holding our game hostage would not be the way for us as fans to show our disappointment with the whole situation.
Also, I’m putting more blame on the owner’s heads. The NFL is more popular then it’s ever been, yet all of a sudden they’re falling on hard times and aren’t making enough money? Give me a damn break.
Hold the phone
Easy there. I mean, now we’re only talking about profit margins of hundreds of millions of dollars when before it was marginally better on a percentage basis! After this, the profit margins will be slightly less so! This is a cataclysmic spiral downward in profit margins. Next thing you know, the owners will only be making thousands of times what any of us will make in our lifetimes instead of tens of thousands of times!
Organized Boycott
If I thought for one second it could be done, I would be the leader, driver and flag waver of the Boycott An NFL GAME bus. No I am not talking about the whole season. Just one game, on the same week, for every team. If it really happened, that MIGHT make both sides try a little harder the next time the CBA is up for negotiations.
I know, call me foolish, but I sure wish fans had a voice as well. :-O = ( Get it done and lets play football damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
I wish there was some kind of thing
We could donate money to, that would air a commercial expressing the sheer distaste all of us have for this crap.
irony
i’m a sucker. i will spend hours on a forum, writing about my team no matter how this plays out. no matter how much either side is making, i will be watching this shit as soon as it gets back on TV.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
