PDA

View Full Version : 18 Game Schedule Off The Table



BroncoWave
03-09-2011, 08:17 PM
This is fantastic news.


WASHINGTON -- For the first time publicly, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said tonight that an 18-game season is off the negotiating table in collective bargaining talks with the owners.
Speaking before approximately 100 fans during a joint event with radio station 106.7-FM "The Fan" at the union's downtown office, Smith was categorical that the players won't expand the regular season from 16 to 18 games. He previously had been nuanced in his remarks, saying any change would be predicated on significant adjustments to teams' offseason training programs and the amount of padded contact the players endured during in-season practices.
However when contacted after a Q&A sessions with fans, Smith reiterated that 18 games is a no-go with the players.
"First of all, the league has never presented a formal proposal for 18 games," he told SI.com. "But more importantly, it's something that our players don't want. Eighteen games is not in the best interest of our players' safety, so we're not doing it."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/09/nfl.labor.18.game.schedule/index.html#ixzz1G9gEomyF

atwater27
03-09-2011, 08:26 PM
Good. Now the historic NFL records will not be turned into a Madden video game.

Bullgator
03-09-2011, 08:26 PM
This just goes to show much leverage the owners have lost.. and bodes well for the CBA being done in the next 10 days.

Very good news

rcsodak
03-09-2011, 08:56 PM
It was a throw-in by the league, imo. They have to do their part in the give-n-take, and decided from the start that it would be part of the 'give'. Especially since smith even said they'd not even given a formal proposal for it.
Point-NFL
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
03-09-2011, 10:30 PM
I heard that it was something they would definitely have.

SO I guess that until the CBA is signed no one knows for sure.

Bullgator
03-09-2011, 10:56 PM
I heard that it was something they would definitely have.

SO I guess that until the CBA is signed no one knows for sure.

That was a must for the owners, but with no leverage they cant push it.. only 1 thing left really... and thats opening up the books so the owners can show they need more money... IMO they will get more money but not the billion they seek.

dogfish
03-09-2011, 11:01 PM
It was a throw-in by the league, imo. They have to do their part in the give-n-take, and decided from the start that it would be part of the 'give'. Especially since smith even said they'd not even given a formal proposal for it.
Point-NFL
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

who knows? they may have never even wanted one-- they may have just raised the spectre of it to provide a "concession" that doesn't cost them anything yet feels like a significant victory to the players. . . a notable "victory" for the union to hang on its mantle and say they got theirs in the negotiation even though they actually just gave back some of the money from the last deal. . .

totally possible IMO, though i don't doubt the league would be fine playing more games. . .

in any case, good news as far as i'm concerned. . . i didn't want it, and it's just a side item that had to get dealt with before they get down to the real meat of the squabble. . . we won't know for sure what to believe until it's all formal, but it's at least encouraging that we're hearing reports of actual bargaining going on instead of just hot air. . .

Lonestar
03-10-2011, 03:11 AM
As I understand it the owners offered to open 5 years of books to the NFL PA but the players wanted more.

This was a huge offer by the NFL. It will be seen by the public as what it was a concession by them and now the greedy PA wants more.

I suspect that the momentum just moved back to the owners side
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

sneakers
03-10-2011, 03:31 AM
Glad to hear.

Poet
03-10-2011, 03:46 AM
More football = better. It had to go because the owner's did not want to have to give them more game checks, they just wanted to spread out the contracts that much more.

Northman
03-10-2011, 04:32 AM
Thank god. I love football just like the next guy but it was getting ridiculous trying to change things all the time.

BigSarge87
03-10-2011, 12:17 PM
Listening to the news this morning, it sounds like the owners have practically no leverage at all.

They are going to lose it's just a matter of when. It's pretty obvious they have some pretty damning fiscal actions they don't want the public, players or each other to know about. If they had nothing to hide they could have released the accounting information without employee names, team names, etc. and the NFLPA could review the books without knowing what teams they were looking at and still get a decent idea of why the NFL needs the extra money. Since the NFL won't agree to it, they obviously have some pretty shady actions to hide. And in the end that is going to cost them big time.

If they stick to their guns and demand the $800,000,000 then the NFLPA will decertify and they are going to court. If this happens then the court will require them to open the books anyway and the embarassment will ensue. If their accounting is on the up and up, the court could justify their demands and give them the $800 mil. OR the court could find a ton of illegal or shady activity and the NFL could be in big trouble. This isn't a good option for the NFL but it might be the only way they have a chance in hell of getting that money.

If they do open their books to the extent the NFLPA demands, then they will be publicly embarassed AND the NFLPA could still say 'no way, your making plenty of money you just need to manage it better'.

To me, it looks like their ONLY option is to reduce drastically the amount of additional revenue they are requesting and hope that the NFLPA will agree to it without needing to see the books.

Does someone have another side of the story I'm missing?

Agent of Orange
03-10-2011, 12:23 PM
Listening to the news this morning, it sounds like the owners have practically no leverage at all.

They are going to lose it's just a matter of when. It's pretty obvious they have some pretty damning fiscal actions they don't want the public, players or each other to know about. If they had nothing to hide they could have released the accounting information without employee names, team names, etc. and the NFLPA could review the books without knowing what teams they were looking at and still get a decent idea of why the NFL needs the extra money. Since the NFL won't agree to it, they obviously have some pretty shady actions to hide. And in the end that is going to cost them big time.

If they stick to their guns and demand the $800,000,000 then the NFLPA will decertify and they are going to court. If this happens then the court will require them to open the books anyway and the embarassment will ensue. If their accounting is on the up and up, the court could justify their demands and give them the $800 mil. OR the court could find a ton of illegal or shady activity and the NFL could be in big trouble. This isn't a good option for the NFL but it might be the only way they have a chance in hell of getting that money.

If they do open their books to the extent the NFLPA demands, then they will be publicly embarassed AND the NFLPA could still say 'no way, your making plenty of money you just need to manage it better'.

To me, it looks like their ONLY option is to reduce drastically the amount of additional revenue they are requesting and hope that the NFLPA will agree to it without needing to see the books.

Does someone have another side of the story I'm missing?

Possibly but all pro sports teams seem to hold the privacy of their financial information sacred. It almost seems so sacred that it's practically above all else. The thing is that it seems really to be the principle of it. It seems theyre worried that if they give ground on allowing that kind of access, the genie will be out of the bottle.

PAINTERDAVE
03-10-2011, 12:26 PM
Gredy rats on both sides....

agree on a price..
assign a rookie cap...
sign a deal and move on damnit!

Denver Native (Carol)
03-10-2011, 12:29 PM
Help me here - from what I understand, basically, the players are saying no to the 18 game schedule - but, unless I missed it in the link posted, I did not see where the owners agreed that there will not be an 18 game schedule. If the owners have not agreed to that, I am confused how that issue can now be off the table.

PAINTERDAVE
03-10-2011, 12:34 PM
Help me here - from what I understand, basically, the players are saying no to the 18 game schedule - but, unless I missed it in the link posted, I did not see where the owners agreed that there will not be an 18 game schedule. If the owners have not agreed to that, I am confused how that issue can now be off the table.

I read it the same way....
just because the players declare it "off the table" in the media...
does not mean the owners have agreed.

That is like having an argument with your wife...
and telling her..

"That's off the table!"

The wheels are still spinning in her head.

This deal is FAR from done.

_________________________

I just didn't want to come on here and rain on everybody's
brief moment of hope.

Good job , Carol.. you brought these guys down from their brief little high spot today!


JK :lol:

BigSarge87
03-10-2011, 01:28 PM
I was thinking that as well, but from what everyone is saying this morning (on sports news radio) that there is ZERO chance they get 18 games so they probably won't even bring it up. They are going to have a hard enough time gettting out of this predicament with their dignity in tact, let alone gain anything else at all.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-10-2011, 01:46 PM
I was thinking that as well, but from what everyone is saying this morning (on sports news radio) that there is ZERO chance they get 18 games so they probably won't even bring it up. They are going to have a hard enough time gettting out of this predicament with their dignity in tact, let alone gain anything else at all.

The owners can still use it as a negotiating tactic - i.e. - we will agree to stay with the 16 game schedule, if the players agree to drop (whatever it may be), could be wanting to see the financial statements, or something else that they will request that the players back off of.

rcsodak
03-10-2011, 02:05 PM
who knows? they may have never even wanted one-- they may have just raised the spectre of it to provide a "concession" that doesn't cost them anything yet feels like a significant victory to the players. . . a notable "victory" for the union to hang on its mantle and say they got theirs in the negotiation even though they actually just gave back some of the money from the last deal. . .

totally possible IMO, though i don't doubt the league would be fine playing more games. . .

in any case, good news as far as i'm concerned. . . i didn't want it, and it's just a side item that had to get dealt with before they get down to the real meat of the squabble. . . we won't know for sure what to believe until it's all formal, but it's at least encouraging that we're hearing reports of actual bargaining going on instead of just hot air. . .
Why don't you want 2 more games? Seat holders are paying the same whether they mean anything or not.
If 18 is too many, maybe 16 is also! Back to 14 gms.....january SB...LESS INJURIES.

Of course, the players wont be willing to take paycuts though, would they.

:coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-10-2011, 02:07 PM
More football = better. It had to go because the owner's did not want to have to give them more game checks, they just wanted to spread out the contracts that much more.

Where did you hear that?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-10-2011, 02:10 PM
Help me here - from what I understand, basically, the players are saying no to the 18 game schedule - but, unless I missed it in the link posted, I did not see where the owners agreed that there will not be an 18 game schedule. If the owners have not agreed to that, I am confused how that issue can now be off the table.
Thus my, nothings final til its ALL final.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-10-2011, 02:13 PM
The owners can still use it as a negotiating tactic - i.e. - we will agree to stay with the 16 game schedule, if the players agree to drop (whatever it may be), could be wanting to see the financial statements, or something else that they will request that the players back off of.
Evidently, the polling public don't care about the 18.....but wait until preseason games start and it may change.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums