PDA

View Full Version : Broncos' Joe Ellis stunned NFLPA turned down owners' proposal



Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 08:39 PM
Somewhere between our nation's capital and the hub of the Rocky Mountains, about 40,000 feet in the air Friday evening, the Broncos management team of Pat Bowlen and Joe Ellis shared their mutual disappointment and disbelief.

"Pat and I were talking on the plane last night and we were stunned the players turned down the proposal," Ellis said Saturday, a day after the NFL Players Association decided to decertify its union, a move that brought collective bargaining to the courts. The NFL countered by instituting a lockout against the players.

Among the points Ellis made during his first interview since the league and players union engaged in collective bargaining negotiations three weeks ago:

# Contrary to perception since owners voted to re-open the collective bargaining agreement in 2008, the league is not claiming poverty.

This is about the costs of player compensation, stadium operations and game promotions increasing at a far greater rate than owner profitability.

"It's not a hardship," Ellis said. "It's being able to operate your business effectively to grow it. That has gone off the track in the last five years."

# Bowlen is willing to open his books from the past five seasons if it means getting a deal done.

"If the league decides they want to open up the books of the Denver Broncos to present them to the union — I don't know if the league is into identifying individual clubs because they're private businesses," Ellis said. "But with a neutral (auditor) to verify the fact that certain teams haven't been operating as effectively as they did in the past, we're a willing and able participant.'

full article - http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_17602199?source=rss

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 08:44 PM
Another hit against Smith and the now broken union.
I thought this would be the result the moment he was hired.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 08:46 PM
thats the question, if everything is on the up and up for an extra BILLION dollars why not open the books? Bowlen is willing to(although 10 years not five was the NFLPA demand)

even if your stance is you shouldnt have to show your books it would be in your best interest to do so... for say a billion clams? it would have at least taken away the NFLPAs excuse to walk away.

UNLESS there are some skellies in there you dont want to show. I think thats whats going on here the players are going in for a killing blow... idk what they are going to gain from judge Doty forcing the NFL to open up its books but it looks like its going to happen.

I wish the NFLPA would have accepted the deal, but i guess the owners shouldnt have started a game they cant finish... history repeating itself from 87

Montana Battlin Bear
03-12-2011, 08:52 PM
I was on the NFLPA side up until yesterday and then it became obvious to me they were never trying to get the deal done and were planning to take it to court the entire time.

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 08:55 PM
thats the question, if everything is on the up and up for an extra BILLION dollars why not open the books? Bowlen is willing to(although 10 years not five was the NFLPA demand)

even if your stance is you shouldnt have to show your books it would be in your best interest to do so... for say a billion clams? it would have at least taken away the NFLPAs excuse to walk away.

UNLESS there are some skellies in there you dont want to show. I think thats whats going on here the players are going in for a killing blow... idk what they are going to gain from judge Doty forcing the NFL to open up its books but it looks like its going to happen.

I wish the NFLPA would have accepted the deal, but i guess the owners shouldnt have started a game they cant finish... history repeating itself from 87

Did you read what ellis said? I find it difficult to believe you did, otherwise you wouldn't be hanging on the 10yr demand.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 08:59 PM
Could someone please explain to me WHY the players feel they have a right to see the owner's books???? I could see this if they were not getting paid, to see where the money was going, but they are getting paid, so the owner's books should be none of their business.

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 09:04 PM
Could someone please explain to me WHY the players feel they have a right to see the owner's books???? I could see this if they were not getting paid, to see where the money was going, but they are getting paid, so the owner's books should be none of their business.
Betting man would suggest because they KNEW the NFL would say" no", so they could stomp their feet like a 6yr old all the way to the courthouse.
But that's just me.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Dreadnought
03-12-2011, 09:05 PM
Could someone please explain to me WHY the players feel they have a right to see the owner's books???? I could see this if they were not getting paid, to see where the money was going, but they are getting paid, so the owner's books should be none of their business.

In this case because the players are entitled under the previous CBA to a specific percentage of the profits...for that reason alone they need to have an accurate accounting to ensure the numbers aren't being "gamed".

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 09:07 PM
I can understand that position, but my understanding is that its not the individual players that are sticking thier nose where it doesnt belong but the NFLPA which is a finacial partner with the league... people are forgetting its not just the owners money they are debating... its both of thiers

that money is partially the players and the owners need thier permission to touch it. like a joint account, makes sense?

and so if the NFLPA is going to allow the owners to touch that money they want to know why- the league says profits are down we need more- the NFLPA syays prove it give us the records for the past 10 years- owners say no way- NFLPA says its either that or we take you to court and make you show us- the owners say go eff yourself we will see you in court.

SR
03-12-2011, 09:09 PM
Could someone please explain to me WHY the players feel they have a right to see the owner's books???? I could see this if they were not getting paid, to see where the money was going, but they are getting paid, so the owner's books should be none of their business.

Carol...I think, more than anything, the players just want to make sure that this money the owners are asking for is being put back in to the team and not back in to the owners' pockets. That'd be the only thing I could think of that would be a logical explanation for why they'd want to see the books.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 09:11 PM
In this case because the players are entitled under the previous CBA to a specific percentage of the profits...for that reason alone they need to have an accurate accounting to ensure the numbers aren't being "gamed".

They definitely have a sweeter deal than most. Many companies offer profit sharing, and I have never heard of the company having to open their books to justify what they paid out was fair.

Dreadnought
03-12-2011, 09:15 PM
They definitely have a sweeter deal than most. Many companies offer profit sharing, and I have never heard of the company having to open their books to justify what they paid out was fair.

Its like anything else in life Carol - "Trust, but verify"

There is too much money at stake and too much temptation to trim at the edges not to have independant auditing at the very least.

rcsodak
03-12-2011, 09:18 PM
In this case because the players are entitled under the previous CBA to a specific percentage of the profits...for that reason alone they need to have an accurate accounting to ensure the numbers aren't being "gamed".
So why isn't 5yrs good enough?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

HORSEPOWER 56
03-12-2011, 09:18 PM
Carol...I think, more than anything, the players just want to make sure that this money the owners are asking for is being put back in to the team and not back in to the owners' pockets. That'd be the only thing I could think of that would be a logical explanation for why they'd want to see the books.

Yeah, but the players should try working for our boss. Red, you and I work for the most inept and corrupt business on Earth...

The Government... ;)

Nomad
03-12-2011, 09:19 PM
Its like anything else in life Carol - "Trust, but verify"

There is too much money at stake and too much temptation to trim at the edges not to have independant auditing at the very least.

Has this language been proposed?? If some of the owners don't want the NFLPA in their books perhaps both sides can agree on an outside source to audit the books and make sure everything is legit!!

SR
03-12-2011, 09:21 PM
Yeah, but the players should try working for our boss. Red, you and I work for the most inept and corrupt business on Earth...

The Government... ;)

:laugh:

Absolutely.

Hey...I'm not saying I agree with it...I'm just saying that's the only reason I could see them justifying asking the Owners to open their books.

Dreadnought
03-12-2011, 09:23 PM
So why isn't 5yrs good enough?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Personally? I think it is fine, but they didn't ask me. I was just saying why in general the request to see the books was a reasonable one. I suspect Demaurice Smith came up with ten just to be a weiner. He's a lawyer, and its what they do. If the owners had agreed to ten he'd probably make it 15, and so on.

Smith wants the big antitrust killshot IMO, perhaps to kill the salary cap and revenue sharing and bring about unlimited FA $ as in MLB. He could give a rat's ass about the league or its health

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 09:24 PM
Has this language been proposed?? If some of the owners don't want the NFLPA in their books perhaps both sides can agree on an outside source to audit the books and make sure everything is legit!!

From article - Ellis speaking


"We offered to show the union league-wide and club profitability data," Ellis said. "Not only that it can be verified by a mutually agreed upon third-party auditor. This is the type of information we don't share with each other. In other words, we aren't allowed to see how other teams are doing specifically in terms of revenues and expenses. Everything is very formalized in terms of information we get from other clubs. Now the union didn't even want to look at it."

Nomad
03-12-2011, 09:29 PM
Thanks DN! Dread's right that Smith wouldn't have settled regardless....typical union mentality.

SR
03-12-2011, 09:34 PM
It almost sounds as if the Owners couldn't do anything to please the NFLPA...

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 09:42 PM
It almost sounds as if the Owners couldn't do anything to please the NFLPA...


"DeMaurice Smith did a great job communicating to the players during this past season that there was a 95 percent possibility of a lockout," Broncos defensive end Elvis Dumervil said. "So the players have been prepared for this.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

It appears you are right SR - why would Smith be communicating to the players during the past season that there was a 95% possibility of a lockout, without even hearing what the owners were proposing, negotiating with the owners, etc?

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 09:45 PM
Points of contention

NFL reporter Mike Klis looks at the primary issues in dispute between the NFL owners and the players union:

1. Revenues: The NFL generates about $9 billion in annual revenues. The owners take $1 billion off the top for game improvements such as stadium construction and the NFL Network, then give 59.6 percent of the remaining revenue to the players. The owners had wanted to take another $1 billion off the top. However, owners submitted a proposal Friday that lowered their asking price to $1.5 billion total.

2. The books: The union asked the owners for 10 years of audited financial records. Instead, the owners offered five years of club-by-club records.

3. Schedule: To make up for the players' reduced percentage of revenues, the owners want to grow the revenue pie by expanding the regular season from 16 to 18 games. The players don't want to play more games, citing the increased risk of injuries. The league countered Friday by saying it would stick with a 16-game schedule for an additional year, or through the 2012 season.

4. Down time: To compensate for the possibility of an expanded regular season, the owners proposed to reduce offseason workout programs from 14 weeks to nine, and organized training activity (OTA) practices from 14 to 10.

5. Rookie salary cap: The league's proposal said changes were only to first-round picks. The owners promised to reallocate savings from a first-round salary structure toward veterans and retirees. It's believed first-round picks will be restricted to four-year contracts. Currently, the top half of the round can get six-year contract and the bottom half gets five-year deals.

6. Medical and health benefits: Owners agreed to establish unspecified year-round health and safety rules and to set up a new legacy fund for retired players, contributing $82 million over the next two years.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

SR
03-12-2011, 09:45 PM
Sounds like he had his mind made up before they even started negotiating. That makes me pissed. Had he gone in saying "Lets do everything we can to get this ironed out so we can play some ball next season", then not being able to get something worked out, it would've looked SO much different.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 10:09 PM
IMO there will be no games missed. I think Doty will rule (as early as monday) business as usual with no stoppage.

I dont see any of this affecting this season, FA or the draft. at least thats what im hoping anyways

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 10:10 PM
Sounds like he had his mind made up before they even started negotiating. That makes me pissed. Had he gone in saying "Lets do everything we can to get this ironed out so we can play some ball next season", then not being able to get something worked out, it would've looked SO much different.

then how do you feel that the league has been planning a lockout for the past 2 years?

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 10:32 PM
I'm still looking, but so far, I have not found an article which states that the league has been planning a lockout for two years.

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 10:45 PM
I'm still looking, but so far, I have not found an article which states that the league has been planning a lockout for two years.

here ya go.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-02/nfl-improperly-negotiated-4-billion-in-tv-contracts-federal-judge-rules.html

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 11:04 PM
Different writers are interpreting this differently:


Now that certain documents from the case heard by Burbank have been made public (albeit in redacted form), we know that some extended TV deals had "lockout clauses" -- specifically, deals with DirectTV, CBS, NBC and FOX. According to Burbank's ruling, the CBS and FOX contracts had pre-existing provisions that would require the networks to pay rights fees in the event of a work stoppage of any kind. The most interesting revelation about this in the Burbank decision is the notion that "the parties would negotiate a refund in good faith." In other words, there was no specific timeframe in which owners would have to return the money, and those conditions were not set out. The owners then added work stoppage language to the extended ESPN and NBC deals; both of those deals were signed in 2010.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Documents-show-owners-planned-for-lockout-in-TV-?urn=nfl-326341

Looks to me this was a CYA just in case

JaxBroncoGirl
03-12-2011, 11:07 PM
I was on the NFLPA side up until yesterday and then it became obvious to me they were never trying to get the deal done and were planning to take it to court the entire time.


Montana, although I am not NFL experienced, more college than the NFL, I think you are right. This is the point to which they wanted to get to in the very first place. No negotiations or anything, this is what the players and owners wanted from the get go.

At this point I would love to invite the replacement players to play this year. We may just be very surprised in the level of play we get to see. Let us just say Diamonds in the Rough.

Everyone here says, well I guess I will just have to watch college football, I love college football, do not need to worry about CBA and lockouts or anything like that the only thing to worry about is the NCAA. Sometimes they even get bought..........

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 11:15 PM
Different writers are interpreting this differently:


http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Documents-show-owners-planned-for-lockout-in-TV-?urn=nfl-326341

Looks to me this was a CYA just in case

just incase what? a lockout! that only the owners can make a lockout. so there is no just incase. there is only you plan ahead for a lockout you know is comming... you cant tell me they expect the players to cough up a billion dollars voluntarily.. the only way you can make them accept a proposal that they dont want is to make them via lockout

in other words its not an natural disaster to buy extra bottled water for.. its in the hands of the owners to do itor not... they knew they would do it and tried to put away money for what they knew was comming

Denver Native (Carol)
03-12-2011, 11:27 PM
Or possibly they knew the players would decertify, which would cause the lockout.


To combat the players’ class-action suit, the owners also have filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board that the NFL Players Association didn’t bargain in good faith in their recent collective bargaining sessions and is using its decertification Friday strictly as a negotiating tactic.

Mark Murphy, the Packers’ president and CEO, said the NLRB ruling probably will come before the players’ class-action antitrust suit is heard in federal court. Murphy is on the NFL’s negotiating team for collective bargaining talks with the players.

“Should hear from (the NLRB) fairly soon,” Murphy said Saturday at a hastily called press briefing at the Packers’ offices at Lambeau Field. “We argue that decertification was a sham and a bargaining tactic.”

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110312/PKR01/110312043/1058/Players-union-decertification-sham-Packers-Murphy-says

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 11:35 PM
Or possibly they knew the players would decertify, which would cause the lockout.



http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110312/PKR01/110312043/1058/Players-union-decertification-sham-Packers-Murphy-says

actually the players would decertify to AVOID being locked out. Decertification is a pre emtive response to a lockout. you dont dissolve your union as a threat lol, you do it to block a lockout. there would be no reason to decertify unless the league is locking you out. the antitrust lawsuit wouldnt even be filed usualy unti a lockout.. but in this case the league shit the bed with Dotys ruling the league was already in breach of contract with the TV deal.

after 2 extentions and the mediator saying that both sides were extremely professional but just couldnt close the gap in differences the NFL doesnt have a case for NLRB

the owners are in big T lil rubble

Bullgator
03-12-2011, 11:59 PM
check out the mediators comments on the precedings.. you got him saying it was legit.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81eb8a86/Mediator-statement-on-CBA-negotiations

topscribe
03-13-2011, 01:03 AM
Its like anything else in life Carol - "Trust, but verify"

There is too much money at stake and too much temptation to trim at the edges not to have independant auditing at the very least.

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time grasping this. I don't care whether I own a
billion dollar business, or whether I am building storage sheds in my back yard.
What business does someone I hire have to my books?

Just doesn't square to me . . .

-----

atwater27
03-13-2011, 01:27 AM
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time grasping this. I don't care whether I own a
billion dollar business, or whether I am building storage sheds in my back yard.
What business does someone I hire have to my books?

Just doesn't square to me . . .

-----

Top, it's the same mentality as this guy... This numbnutz thinks he can take over an existing business and make it their own, kick the management out just take over.... Listen to what he says about the noodle shop he works for. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just FF to 3:30 for a great laugh. It's funny... people are calling him the soup nazi.

8M3DLGP4UKQ

Interviewer: What would you say about those who would say classism works in the same way?

ISO Member: Well like I described earlier there are two fundamental classes that are just a plain fact in society. You either work for someone else or you work for yourself. And most people work for someone else in a way that they aren’t free.

Um, you don’t really get to decide your work.

For example I work at Noodles, a restaurant. And basically it’s a dictatorship there, we’re told exactly what we’re gonna cook, how we’re gonna cook it, what time we’re gonna get there. And basically if they don’t like what they’re doing, they try to tell us what to do, if we don’t listen they get rid of us.

And so we’re not able to actually cooperate together in a way that we make decisions together.

I try to convince my fellow employees that we should have a union at Noodles so it’s a source of power, to start with.

And then I think in terms of the bigger picture, when you look at revolutions, the way that you actually get rid of any sort of dictatorship, um, is by having workers take control of the place where they work.

Interviewer: Would your plan, your vision for Noodles, would it include the owner? What capacity would he be granted?

ISO Member: If the owner wanted to cooperate with us as an equal and provide his skills that he had, we would definitely cooperate with him. We’d have to advocate his position as being an owner and controller of us, and he’d have to recognize that we run Noodles together. And basically if he doesn’t want to cooperate with us, he’s against us.
http://hearus-now.org/?p=1686

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 08:48 AM
actually the players would decertify to AVOID being locked out. Decertification is a pre emtive response to a lockout. you dont dissolve your union as a threat lol, you do it to block a lockout. there would be no reason to decertify unless the league is locking you out. the antitrust lawsuit wouldnt even be filed usualy unti a lockout.. but in this case the league shit the bed with Dotys ruling the league was already in breach of contract with the TV deal.

after 2 extentions and the mediator saying that both sides were extremely professional but just couldnt close the gap in differences the NFL doesnt have a case for NLRB

the owners are in big T lil rubble

I am still confused - if decertification = avoiding a lockout - how then were the owners able to lock them out :confused:

BroncoJoe
03-13-2011, 09:21 AM
I am still confused - if decertification = avoiding a lockout - how then were the owners able to lock them out :confused:

The owners believe (as do I) that the union decertified for the sole purpose of avoiding a lockout, and will recertify immediately after a new CBA is created.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 10:01 AM
The owners believe (as do I) that the union decertified for the sole purpose of avoiding a lockout, and will recertify immediately after a new CBA is created.

So then, did the owners not lock them out after the decertification?

Northman
03-13-2011, 10:09 AM
Or possibly they knew the players would decertify, which would cause the lockout.



http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110312/PKR01/110312043/1058/Players-union-decertification-sham-Packers-Murphy-says


This^

Simply planning for what "might" happen is not the same as "definitely" doing something. The players vs owners has been going on for quite some time and considering what has happened in the past the owners were trying to take pre-cautions in case the players chose to play hard ball which is exactly what has happened.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 10:11 AM
This^

Simply planning for what "might" happen is not the same as "definitely" doing something. The players vs owners has been going on for quite some time and considering what has happened in the past the owners were trying to take pre-cautions in case the players chose to play hard ball which is exactly what has happened.

Agree :salute: - that's exactly the way I see it also

BroncoJoe
03-13-2011, 10:15 AM
So then, did the owners not lock them out after the decertification?

I believe there is an official lockout. That's why the players are suing, and the NFL counter-suing.

SR
03-13-2011, 10:48 AM
then how do you feel that the league has been planning a lockout for the past 2 years?

I don't feel that and never said as much.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 01:31 PM
I am still confused - if decertification = avoiding a lockout - how then were the owners able to lock them out :confused:

because it allows the players to sue the league and file for an injunction for no work stoppage(which they will almost certainly get)... as a union they could not sue or file an injunction, but as individuals they can. Decertification is only effective in the case of the league locking them out and has no other purpose than to counter that. thats why it exists.. quite brilliant move actually

like legal kung fu.. you lockout, we decertify and file an injuction to stop the lockout before it can even be effective=avoiding a lockout

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 01:34 PM
I don't feel that and never said as much.

you dont feel the league has been planning a lockout out for the past 2 years? is that what your saying?

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 01:37 PM
actually the players would decertify to AVOID being locked out. Decertification is a pre emtive response to a lockout. you dont dissolve your union as a threat lol, you do it to block a lockout. there would be no reason to decertify unless the league is locking you out. the antitrust lawsuit wouldnt even be filed usualy unti a lockout.. but in this case the league shit the bed with Dotys ruling the league was already in breach of contract with the TV deal.

after 2 extentions and the mediator saying that both sides were extremely professional but just couldnt close the gap in differences the NFL doesnt have a case for NLRB

the owners are in big T lil rubble

The union decertified DURING negotiations. Smith is quoted as saying he told players as early as thursday, they were most likely going to decertify.
The union had 6 mos to pull the trigger.
Barry Jr. in action.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe
03-13-2011, 01:55 PM
Top, it's the same mentality as this guy... This numbnutz thinks he can take over an existing business and make it their own, kick the management out just take over.... Listen to what he says about the noodle shop he works for. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just FF to 3:30 for a great laugh. It's funny... people are calling him the soup nazi.


It would be funny, were it not so sad. Where do these punks get off, wanting
an "equal partnership" when all they had to do was to fill out an application for
employment? "If the owner wanted to cooperate and apply his skills as an equal
partner, we could cooperate with him." HUH?

That flick is a microcosm of what is going on in football right now. All those
players did to get where they are in the NFL is to declare for the draft. All they
know is how to sack the QB or pass the ball or block the sacker. How much
money did they invest in the franchised they work for? How much time and
effort have they put in to build it and make it into something the players
could work for?

"We want it because you have it." That seems to be the mode of thought.
Even minimum wage there is more than I ever made in my fondest dreams, for
pity's sake. It's none of their business how much the owners are making. It's
not like they are barely eeking by in indentured servitude.

Keep them out. Break them. And bring ticket prices down, while they're at it.
I'll watch college football for a while . . . :coffee:

-----

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 01:56 PM
The union decertified DURING negotiations. Smith is quoted as saying he told players they were most liely going to dc on thursday.
The union had 6 mos to pull the trigger.
Barry Jr. in action.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Yes, the union decertified FIRST, then the owners locked them out. So, I still DO NOT understand how decertification on the players part would avoid a lockout. They have been locked out:confused:

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 02:15 PM
This^

Simply planning for what "might" happen is not the same as "definitely" doing something. The players vs owners has been going on for quite some time and considering what has happened in the past the owners were trying to take pre-cautions in case the players chose to play hard ball which is exactly what has happened.

let me tell you why that is an uninformed statement with all its high fives...

Because federal judge David Doty ruled otherwise. He ruled it WAS a planned move by the league and that it was in breech of contract.

I think ill take HIS word for it.

seriously its not that hard to see that the owners have been planning this day. and that they are the ones who planned work stoppage to get what they want when everything was just fine. all they had to do was not opt out of the CBA and we wouldnt be here discussing this..


lllooogggiiicccc

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 02:18 PM
Yes, the union decertified FIRST, then the owners locked them out. So, I still DO NOT understand how decertification on the players part would avoid a lockout. They have been locked out:confused:
I'm with ya, sistah. And I have never seen you use bold this much. Deep breaths, carol...... :wink:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 02:18 PM
Yes, the union decertified FIRST, then the owners locked them out. So, I still DO NOT understand how decertification on the players part would avoid a lockout. They have been locked out:confused:

its a pre emptive move!!! Carol if i know your going to hit me with a stick im going to put a helmet on.. this really isnt that hard to figure out

decertification would avoid the lockout by filing an injuction on the lockout.. so technicaly the lockout would happen but only for like a weekend(while there is no football anyway in the offseason) but the lockout wont last long enough to affect the season/preseason... if doty moves fast enough(iand i bet he will) it wont affct FA or the draft either

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 02:31 PM
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time grasping this. I don't care whether I own a
billion dollar business, or whether I am building storage sheds in my back yard.
What business does someone I hire have to my books?

Just doesn't square to me . . .

-----

honestly, no offense, but it's pretty sad that you're having such a hard time grasping such a simple topic.

the owners and the players have (had) agreed via a collectively bargained agreement that the players would be paid a certain percentage of revenue. Follow so far? Hope so, cuz it's not complicated.

now, say you are in a deal with Organization X that states you will be paid x percentage of revenue. How do you know that Organization X is actually paying you x percentage as agreed upon, and not actually x-y, without having seen their books?

There's a reason why the league okayed letting the NHLPA see the past five years worth of books...because it's a perfectly reasonable expectation when you're both party to an agreement that is dealing with PERCENTAGES of revenue.

again, not really a tough concept for anyone with even a minimum capacity for critical thinking.

:coffee:

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 02:33 PM
let me tell you why that is an uninformed statement with all its high fives...

Because federal judge David Doty ruled otherwise. He ruled it WAS a planned move by the league and that it was in breech of contract.

I think ill take HIS word for it.

seriously its not that hard to see that the owners have been planning this day. and that they are the ones who planned work stoppage to get what they want when everything was just fine. all they had to do was not opt out of the CBA and we wouldnt be here discussing this..


lllooogggiiicccc

Logic can also show they did that BECAUSE they felt all along the PA was going to decertify, and was not serious about negotiating. As another said, it was a CYA act.
And unless doty can read minds, all he can rule on is rule of law. He said they(nfl) left money on the table and didn't act in good faith by not getting all the money they could have.

A bold man could also say the nfl was trying to lower the cost of doing business by taking less money. ie... Salary cap tied to tv money.
Which in turn could lower tix, nfl ticket, etc.

What's wrong with that?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 02:35 PM
Yes, the union decertified FIRST, then the owners locked them out. So, I still DO NOT understand how decertification on the players part would avoid a lockout. They have been locked out:confused:

it's really just legal semantics that you have to be a lawyer (or at least fluent in legaleeze) to really understand.

You can't lock out unorganized labour. In other words there has to be a union to lockout, not just employees. I don't get all the anti-trust ramifications, but as far as "we the people" are concerned, there's no important difference at this point (at least as far as I understand it).

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 02:42 PM
its a pre emptive move!!! Carol if i know your going to hit me with a stick im going to put a helmet on.. this really isnt that hard to figure out

decertification would avoid the lockout by filing an injuction on the lockout.. so technicaly the lockout would happen but only for like a weekend(while there is no football anyway in the offseason) but the lockout wont last long enough to affect the season/preseason... if doty moves fast enough(iand i bet he will) it wont affct FA or the draft either

If I see you putting on a helmet, i'll just hit you in the nuts.
Did you not see doom's quote saying smith said this action was 95% a sure thing all yr long? The nfl was giving in on multiple levels, which shows they were putting more into the negotiations. I saw a report where the extra $1B was down to $350m.
Union looked like they wanted litigation vs negotiation from the get-go. Especially when they chose a lawyer as their leader.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe
03-13-2011, 02:42 PM
honestly, no offense, but it's pretty sad that you're having such a hard time grasping such a simple topic.

the owners and the players have (had) agreed via a collectively bargained agreement that the players would be paid a certain percentage of revenue. Follow so far? Hope so, cuz it's not complicated.

now, say you are in a deal with Organization X that states you will be paid x percentage of revenue. How do you know that Organization X is actually paying you x percentage as agreed upon, and not actually x-y, without having seen their books?

There's a reason why the league okayed letting the NHLPA see the past five years worth of books...because it's a perfectly reasonable expectation when you're both party to an agreement that is dealing with PERCENTAGES of revenue.

again, not really a tough concept for anyone with even a minimum capacity for critical thinking.

:coffee:

That is right. It is not complicated. My money is my money. If I hire you to
work for me, you know what you will be getting before you ever step into my
workplace. You have no right to my books and see what I am making with my
investment. Period.

What I am having trouble grasping is that you are having trouble grasping that.
The players are employees. They go to work. The owners are their employers.
The owners invested their own money. None of what they invested belonged
to the players. If they don't like it, they don't have to go to work. If enough
of them do it, then that will be incentive for the owners to pay more. But to
try to force the owners to do it through the courts is socialistic, as is this
"collective bargaining" crap.

It's very simple . . . :coffee:

-----

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 02:43 PM
Logic can also show they did that BECAUSE they felt all along the PA was going to decertify, and was not serious about negotiating. As another said, it was a CYA act.
And unless doty can read minds, all he can rule on is rule of law. He said they(nfl) left money on the table and didn't act in good faith by not getting all the money they could have.

A bold man could also say the nfl was trying to lower the cost of doing business by taking less money. ie... Salary cap tied to tv money.
Which in turn could lower tix, nfl ticket, etc.

What's wrong with that?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

RC you are missing the whole point of decertification.


and about the rest you should take that up with Doty.. he disagrees with you

you dont disband your organization as a threat lmao... how is "HEY if you dont do what we said, we are going to cease to exist! that will show you!"

decertification SOLE purpose is to counter a lockout by the owners. period.
the lockout was going to happen if a deal wasnt reached.. lol why dont you talk about that? instead you talk about why didnt stand still and get bashed by the lockout?

cause and effect.. you lock us out we will decertify... if there was not going to be a lockout WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU DECERTIFY lol.

now some are hung up on the fact that decertification was technically file before the lockout.. so what? by what minutes? the point is both side knew what was happening here and played their cards acordingly

the owners are bitching about like elmer fud "hold still so i can bash ya!"

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 02:45 PM
honestly, no offense, but it's pretty sad that you're having such a hard time grasping such a simple topic.

the owners and the players have (had) agreed via a collectively bargained agreement that the players would be paid a certain percentage of revenue. Follow so far? Hope so, cuz it's not complicated.

now, say you are in a deal with Organization X that states you will be paid x percentage of revenue. How do you know that Organization X is actually paying you x percentage as agreed upon, and not actually x-y, without having seen their books?

There's a reason why the league okayed letting the NHLPA see the past five years worth of books...because it's a perfectly reasonable expectation when you're both party to an agreement that is dealing with PERCENTAGES of revenue.

again, not really a tough concept for anyone with even a minimum capacity for critical thinking.

:coffee:
So how's come you get it? :coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 02:48 PM
That is right. It is not complicated. My money is my money. If I hire you to
work for me, you know what you will be getting before you ever step into my
workplace. You have no right to my books and see what I am making with my
investment. Period.

What I am having trouble grasping is that you are having trouble grasping that.
The players are employees. They go to work. The owners are their employers.
The owners invested their own money. None of what they invested belonged
to the players. If they don't like it, they don't have to go to work. If enough
of them do it, then that will be incentive for the owners to pay more. But to
try to force the owners to do it through the courts is socialistic, as is this
"collective bargaining" crap.

It's very simple . . . :coffee:


-----

you dont know what number you are getting you know the percentage.. to be sure you are not getting screwed you need to see the books to make sure you are getting the right %... when percentages are brought in you are no longer and emploee but a partner and a partner has ever right to look at the books

you are not getting that the money IS NOT YOURS its belongs to both

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 02:52 PM
you can disagree with the way its set up and call it socialistic.. but you cant agree to the deal and then renig.. it is what it is top.. the owners made thier bed now it has bedbugs

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 02:52 PM
Smith knew exactly what he was doing advising the players like he did - it is published all over that Doty favors the players.

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 02:54 PM
That is right. It is not complicated. My money is my money. If I hire you to
work for me, you know what you will be getting before you ever step into my
workplace. You have no right to my books and see what I am making with my
investment. Period.

What I am having trouble grasping is that you are having trouble grasping that.
The players are employees. They go to work. The owners are their employers.
The owners invested their own money. None of what they invested belonged
to the players. If they don't like it, they don't have to go to work. If enough
of them do it, then that will be incentive for the owners to pay more. But to
try to force the owners to do it through the courts is socialistic, as is this
"collective bargaining" crap.

It's very simple . . . :coffee:

-----

oh noes...socialism...:sheep:

top, you shouldn't use words when you so obviously don't know what they mean.


So how's come you get it? :coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

because I'm not stupid.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 02:56 PM
RC you are missing the whole point of decertification.


and about the rest you should take that up with Doty.. he disagrees with you

you dont disband your organization as a threat lmao... how is "HEY if you dont do what we said, we are going to cease to exist! that will show you!"

decertification SOLE purpose is to counter a lockout by the owners. period.
the lockout was going to happen if a deal wasnt reached.. lol why dont you talk about that? instead you talk about why didnt stand still and get bashed by the lockout?

cause and effect.. you lock us out we will decertify... if there was not going to be a lockout WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU DECERTIFY lol.

now some are hung up on the fact that decertification was technically file before the lockout.. so what? by what minutes? the point is both side knew what was happening here and played their cards acordingly

the owners are bitching about like elmer fud "hold still so i can bash ya!"

You're as blind concerning your opinion of doty/the union as you are for TT. LOL

They DIDN'T HAVE TO DECERTIFY. Did you read that?
They COULD have went with another extension.
lol

But because they were going to decertify anyway, REGARDLESS (per smiths 95% to the players) lmao ...
rotflmao....
lol...
...it didn't matter WHAT the league said/did.

Wonder how long before smith & co ask for some positive words from barry and co.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 02:56 PM
Smith knew exactly what he was doing advising the players like he did - it is published all over that Doty favors the players.

agreed, he new the game the owners would play and outsmarted them.

i dont paint the players as victims or fair, but i dont blame them for going in for the kill on a better deal..

IMO the owners started the fight to begin with by opting out and trying to use strong arm tactics and effed up bad... now that the fight is on you cant be mad at the players for crushing thier opponent when given the oppertunity. they are just finishing what the owners started IMO

topscribe
03-13-2011, 02:59 PM
oh noes...socialism...:sheep:

top, you shouldn't use words when you so obviously don't know what they mean.


You certainly should. After all, you live in Canada.

Anyway, you are not furthering your argument by insulting me or by using juvenile expressions ("oh noes") . . .

-----

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:00 PM
oh noes...socialism...:sheep:

top, you shouldn't use words when you so obviously don't know what they mean.



because I'm not stupid.

Nice.
So everybody that disagrees with you is a sheep and stupid.

Way to not namecall.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:01 PM
and by the way why are you guys mad anyway? there will be no football missed..only MAYBE FA will be affected before the draft if Doty drags his feet... in fact RC and Top should be all ears.. the ONLY thing this will affect IMO is that KO will most likely not be traded now and start the season.. im the one whos pissed.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:05 PM
You're as blind concerning your opinion of doty/the union as you are for TT. LOL

They DIDN'T HAVE TO DECERTIFY. Did you read that?
They COULD have went with another extension.
lol

But because they were going to decertify anyway, REGARDLESS (per smiths 95% to the players) lmao ...
rotflmao....
lol...
...it didn't matter WHAT the league said/did.

Wonder how long before smith & co ask for some positive words from barry and co.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

what? thats stupid did you hear what the mediator said? even he saw that there was no reason to continue talks.. as the owners would not give the info the NFLPA wanted... there was 2 extensions ALREADY. it was clear the owners wouldnt budge. here watch this.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81eb8a86/Mediator-statement-on-CBA-negotiations

if the NFL was serious then they should have opened up the books.. they wouldnt and so here we are

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:05 PM
and by the way why are you guys mad anyway? there will be no football missed..only MAYBE FA will be affected before the draft if Doty drags his feet... in fact RC and Top should be all ears.. the ONLY thing this will efect IMO is that KO will most likely not be traded now and start the season.. im the one whos pissed.
Who said were pissed?
I couldn't care less. Have said it before. I don't live/die by nfl football.
Looks more like you should be asking the resident canadian on the board. :coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 03:06 PM
You certainly should. After all, you live in Canada.

Anyway, you are not furthering your argument by insulting me . . .

-----

lol, remember you losing your gourd over Bullgator bringing my nationality into the discussion. Oh look who's playing Dr. Hypocrite today.

wish I could say I was surprised. :beer:

cue "stop making this thread about me" in 3...2...1...


Nice.
So everybody that disagrees with you is a sheep and stupid.

Way to not namecall.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

nope, not everyone. but stupid sheep are stupid sheep anyway you slice 'em.

atwater27
03-13-2011, 03:06 PM
oh noes...socialism...:sheep:

top, you shouldn't use words when you so obviously don't know what they mean.
.

I bet my house top knows the definition, impact and meaning of socialism more than you do.

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 03:08 PM
Who said were pissed?
I couldn't care less. Have said it before. I don't live/die by nfl football.
Looks more like you should be asking the resident canadian on the board. :coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

please give EdmontonBroncoFan (or whatever his/her name is) their due respect, rc. :welcome:

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 03:09 PM
I bet my house top knows the definition, impact and meaning of socialism more than you do.

cool, another homeless American.

topscribe
03-13-2011, 03:09 PM
lol, remember you losing your gourd over Bullgator bringing my nationality into the discussion. Oh look who's playing Dr. Hypocrite today.

wish I could say I was surprised. :beer:

cue "stop making this thread about me" in 3...2...1...



nope, not everyone. but stupid sheep are stupid sheep anyway you slice 'em.

I don't know why people cannot discuss a topic without getting personal and hostile.

But I do know I don't have to discuss it with them. So I won't.

Welcome to my growing Ignore list.

-----

Softskull
03-13-2011, 03:12 PM
That is right. It is not complicated. My money is my money. If I hire you to
work for me, you know what you will be getting before you ever step into my
workplace. You have no right to my books and see what I am making with my
investment. Period.

What I am having trouble grasping is that you are having trouble grasping that.
The players are employees. They go to work. The owners are their employers.
The owners invested their own money. None of what they invested belonged
to the players. If they don't like it, they don't have to go to work. If enough
of them do it, then that will be incentive for the owners to pay more. But to
try to force the owners to do it through the courts is socialistic, as is this
"collective bargaining" crap.

It's very simple . . . :coffee:

-----


I get you Top, but the NFL is different than most businesses. The owners have an anti-trust status that makes them more like a cartel than a business. And really, their “risk” is virtually non-existent. There is no competition to the NFL. Have you seen arena football? The product that the NFL pitches is the fastest, strongest players on earth. So who is really taking the risk? If F=ma still holds up, (according to Newton, it still does) the player mass has increased, the player speed has increased, therefore the forces they apply and receive have also increased. It looks to me that the players are the ones taking the risk. The owners don’t even take full risk on large expenditures like buildings anymore. Half or more of that cost drops on the local citizens whether they watch football or not. As a monopoly, the business is more of a partnership between player and owner rather than the normal business model of owner and employee. Show them the damn books.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:12 PM
what? thats stupid did you hear what the mediator said? even he saw that there was no reason to continue talks.. as the owners would not give the info the NFLPA wanted... there was 2 extensions ALREADY. it was clear the owners wouldnt budge. here watch this.


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81eb8a86/Mediator-statement-on-CBA-negotiations

Are you really that easily boonswaggled? Lol

The union just kept asking for more and more after the league kept giving in.
Why 10yrs? They were offered 5yrs, which was 3 more than the nfl really should have shown.
A dollar to donuts if they had agreed, the union would have asked for longer, as dread said.
FYI, and brace yourself cuz this is a doooozy.....but....

.....pro wrestling isn't real.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 03:13 PM
I don't know why people cannot discuss a topic without getting personal and hostile.

But I do know I don't have to discuss it with them. So I won't.

Welcome to my growing Ignore list.

-----

if you're just going to ignore everyone on the forum, why not just leave.

again. and again. and again.

back to my self imposed lurking.

I left, but just have to respond to this one post.

I'm leaving because someone questioned me.

stop making this thread about me, and my ignore list, or I'll leave.

sad, when the oldest member of the boards is also the most childish.

chances of a response, despite being on top's "growing ignore list"? pretty good.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:17 PM
please give EdmontonBroncoFan (or whatever his/her name is) their due respect, rc. :welcome:
He/she isn't being rude and angry. You are.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 03:20 PM
He/she isn't being rude and angry. You are.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

so now you're morally opposed to rude and angry? sheesh, that's your whole posting MO, always has been.

let's try to at least pretend we have some moral consistency, m'kay.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:21 PM
Are you really that easily boonswaggled? Lol

The union just kept asking for more and more after the league kept giving in.
Why 10yrs? They were offered 5yrs, which was 3 more than the nfl really should have shown.
A dollar to donuts if they had agreed, the union would have asked for longer, as dread said.
FYI, and brace yourself cuz this is a doooozy.....but....

.....pro wrestling isn't real.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

10? why not 15? why not all the way back to 1953 when the nflpa was created?

that revenue belongs to them both, the owners have no right keeping the books to themselves.

it was a fair request.. unless the NFL been cheating on some taxes lol UHOH.. let me tell you why Jerry Jones beleives this is going to get settled at the table anyway... because the NFL cant afford to show thier books or the skellies will come flying out of the closet.

the players have the owners by the bawlls and you want them to let go? why? when the NFL gets nut clipped they might learn to leave well enough alone next time... dumbasses should have learned from the 87 strike

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:21 PM
I get you Top, but the NFL is different than most businesses. The owners have an anti-trust status that makes them more like a cartel than a business. And really, their “risk” is virtually non-existent. There is no competition to the NFL. Have you seen arena football? The product that the NFL pitches is the fastest, strongest players on earth. So who is really taking the risk? If F=ma still holds up, (according to Newton, it still does) the player mass has increased, the player speed has increased, therefore the forces they apply and receive have also increased. It looks to me that the players are the ones taking the risk. The owners don’t even take full risk on large expenditures like buildings anymore. Half or more of that cost drops on the local citizens whether they watch football or not. As a monopoly, the business is more of a partnership between player and owner rather than the normal business model of owner and employee. Show them the damn books.
They offered....and the union COULD have looked at the....and then asked for more. But they simply snubbed the offer and ran to the courts.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe
03-13-2011, 03:22 PM
I get you Top, but the NFL is different than most businesses. The owners have an anti-trust status that makes them more like a cartel than a business. And really, their “risk” is virtually non-existent. There is no competition to the NFL. Have you seen arena football? The product that the NFL pitches is the fastest, strongest players on earth. So who is really taking the risk? If F=ma still holds up, (according to Newton, it still does) the player mass has increased, the player speed has increased, therefore the forces they apply and receive have also increased. It looks to me that the players are the ones taking the risk. The owners don’t even take full risk on large expenditures like buildings anymore. Half or more of that cost drops on the local citizens whether they watch football or not. As a monopoly, the business is more of a partnership between player and owner rather than the normal business model of owner and employee. Show them the damn books.

Skull, what risk are the players taking? That they will have to get real jobs,
like you and I have? I don't care if they run fast and hit hard. Is that their
contribution to society? I'm not impressed.

The issue is ownership. That simple. The owners own, the players do not. It's
supposed to be shared because the owners have a lot of it? Sorry, but that
just does not register.


P.S. I saluted you for showing others how to disagree . . . :salute:

-----

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:24 PM
so now you're morally opposed to rude and angry? sheesh, that's your whole posting MO, always has been.

let's try to at least pretend we have some moral consistency, m'kay.

can we just focus the rude and angerz on me pls, there is only room for 1 pincussion on ths board... find your own gig BCB

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:25 PM
Skull, what risk are the players taking? That they will have to get real jobs,
like you and I have? I don't care if they run fast and hit hard. Is that their
contribution to society? I'm not impressed.

The issue is ownership. That simple. The owners own, the players do not. It's
supposed to be shared because the owners have a lot of it? Sorry, but that
just does not register.

-----

the risk is the broken bones and damaged brains lol Top you need to think things through better... the players are the ones risking everything not the monoplized chash cow owners

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 03:25 PM
IN KEEPING THIS THREAD ON TOPIC



"DeMaurice Smith did a great job communicating to the players during this past season that there was a 95 percent possibility of a lockout," Broncos defensive end Elvis Dumervil said. "So the players have been prepared for this.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

You do NOT communicate to the players during the past season that there is a 95% possibility of a lockout, UNLESS you have made up your mind to go into negotiations with DEAF EARS, AND YOUR MIND MADE UP, with NO intention of negotiating.

It's like - give me what I want, or I am going to take my toys and go home.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:26 PM
if you're just going to ignore everyone on the forum, why not just leave.

again. and again. and again.

back to my self imposed lurking.

I left, but just have to respond to this one post.

I'm leaving because someone questioned me.

stop making this thread about me, and my ignore list, or I'll leave.

sad, when the oldest member of the boards is also the most childish.

chances of a response, despite being on top's "growing ignore list"? pretty good.

What part of calling disagreeing posters" sheep" and" stupid" do you not get?

Maybe you should not enter into discussions where you know you can't refrain from insults/namecalling?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BroncoStud
03-13-2011, 03:28 PM
Skull, what risk are the players taking? That they will have to get real jobs,
like you and I have? I don't care if they run fast and hit hard. Is that their
contribution to society? I'm not impressed.

The issue is ownership. That simple. The owners own, the players do not. It's
supposed to be shared because the owners have a lot of it? Sorry, but that
just does not register.

-----

Finally a post of yours I agree with. :beer:

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:32 PM
so now you're morally opposed to rude and angry? sheesh, that's your whole posting MO, always has been.

let's try to at least pretend we have some moral consistency, m'kay.
Really? If that's the case, my pointing out your posts should be taken even more seriously, right?

And fyi, I don't post angrily. You've never seen me angry.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:35 PM
IN KEEPING THIS THREAD ON TOPIC




http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

You do NOT communicate to the players during the past season that there is a 95% possibility of a lockout, UNLESS you have made up your mind to go into negotiations with DEAF EARS, AND YOUR MIND MADE UP, with NO intention of negotiating.

It's like - give me what I want, or I am going to take my toys and go home.

well if you know the NFL is going to demand something the players will not bow down to like say A BILLION doll hairs, then yes you prepare.

you have to remember its the NFL with the big stck of lockout..you prepare for what you cannot control, not what you can.. if they dont get what they want they will lock you out so be prepaired.

or else they could have siad we want a billion bucks and what ever else they want or threaten lockout.. what are you going to do let them? no you prepair for the worst and see if you can negotiate... if not be prepaired

thats different for the owners because they are driving the bus, they have the kill switch they can push anytime they want.. if they prepair for the kill switch know they will push it if they dont get everything they want.

if this was revered and the players wanted a strike you would then be correct... BUT ITS A LOCKOUT LOL that byitself means its the owners fault.. omg why is this so hard

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:36 PM
IN KEEPING THIS THREAD ON TOPIC




http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

You do NOT communicate to the players during the past season that there is a 95% possibility of a lockout, UNLESS you have made up your mind to go into negotiations with DEAF EARS, AND YOUR MIND MADE UP, with NO intention of negotiating.

It's like - give me what I want, or I am going to take my toys and go home.

Yes. Thank you for repeating that, carol.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

nevcraw
03-13-2011, 03:37 PM
Personally? I think it is fine, but they didn't ask me. I was just saying why in general the request to see the books was a reasonable one. I suspect Demaurice Smith came up with ten just to be a weiner. He's a lawyer, and its what they do. If the owners had agreed to ten he'd probably make it 15, and so on.

Smith wants the big antitrust killshot IMO, perhaps to kill the salary cap and revenue sharing and bring about unlimited FA $ as in MLB. He could give a rat's ass about the league or its health

I believe they asked for 10 to shake the tree. 5 years was attached the offer that sounded better than it really was.

topscribe
03-13-2011, 03:38 PM
Are you really that easily boonswaggled? Lol

The union just kept asking for more and more after the league kept giving in.
Why 10yrs? They were offered 5yrs, which was 3 more than the nfl really should have shown.
A dollar to donuts if they had agreed, the union would have asked for longer, as dread said.
FYI, and brace yourself cuz this is a doooozy.....but....

.....pro wrestling isn't real.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

The only thing wrong with this post is . . .



A donut costs more than a dollar now . . . :D



-----

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 03:41 PM
well if you know the NFL is going to demand something the players will not bow down to like say A BILLION doll hairs, then yes you prepare.

you have to remember its the NFL with the big stck of lockout..you prepare for what you cannot control, not what you can.. if they dont get what they want they will lock you out so be prepaired.

or else they could have siad we want a billion bucks and what ever else they want or threaten lockout.. what are you going to do let them? no you prepair for the worst and see if you can negotiate... if not be prepaired

thats different for the owners because they are driving the bus, they have the kill switch they can push anytime they want.. if they prepair for the kill switch know they will push it if they dont get everything they want.

if this was revered and the players wanted a strike you would then be correct... BUT ITS A LOCKOUT LOL that byitself means its the owners fault.. omg why is this so hard

Did you know the union had 6mos to decertify? (Iinm)
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

bcbronc
03-13-2011, 03:45 PM
What part of calling disagreeing posters" sheep" and" stupid" do you not get?

Maybe you should not enter into discussions where you know you can't refrain from insults/namecalling?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

if you can't stop making this thread about me, I'll have to add you to my rapidly increasing ignore list (it's almost at 1 now). and then I'll have to leave, or at least lurk for a thread or two.


on topic, owners make a lot of money. players make a lot of money. us fans spend a lot of money and/or get a lot of enjoyment. It will all work out in the end, so no need to stress things 6 months from next season.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:46 PM
Finally a post of yours I agree with. :beer:

what a crappy time to agree..

this isnt about what you guys are making it out to be. THE MONEY DOESNT BELONG TO THE OWNERS lol holy crap its like talking to brick walls.

it belongs to both the owners AND the players. the players have EVERY right to see what THEY make.. the books dont belong TO THE OWNERS they belong TO THEM BOTH.. those books ARE the players books tooo!!!!

the second the owners allowed the players to get a percentage of the revenue the players have the right to look at the books. as Doty will rule soon enough

Softskull
03-13-2011, 03:57 PM
Skull, what risk are the players taking? That they will have to get real jobs,
like you and I have? I don't care if they run fast and hit hard. Is that their
contribution to society? I'm not impressed.

The issue is ownership. That simple. The owners own, the players do not. It's
supposed to be shared because the owners have a lot of it? Sorry, but that
just does not register.


P.S. I saluted you for showing others how to disagree . . . :salute:

-----

Well, the players’ average stay in the NFL is less than three years. In the entertainment biz, pay is rarely associated with social contribution. I don’t see how Johnny Depp or Lady Gaga have added to society, but they're both cashing big checks.

I generally agree on the ownership issue, but owners usually have a commodity. In this field, the players are that commodity, and having tried to throw a football 70 yards on rope (unsuccessfully), it's a rare commodity. This isn’t about the have and have nots. To me, they’re both haves. One group has the business end, and one group has the actual talent that we’re all willing to pay for. I guess I look at it this way. I would pay to watch the Broncos vs. Raiders anywhere. I wouldn’t pay to go to an empty Mile High.

Northman
03-13-2011, 03:58 PM
now some are hung up on the FACT that decertification was technically file before the lockout..


Thats what we like, just the facts ma'am.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 03:59 PM
maybe if Top stops ignoring everyone he might learn something. Info is like food, you take in the good and shit out the rest.. Top is starving himself of both. now someone quote this so he can see it lol

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 04:01 PM
Thats what we like, just the facts ma'am.

so what it was filed minutes before lockout was i dont understand what that means in the big picture. its function is still only to counter a lockout... im starting to think you guys are just argueing to argue. you dont make any points just dancing around semantics like its the OJ trial

topscribe
03-13-2011, 04:01 PM
Well, the players’ average stay in the NFL is less than three years. In the entertainment biz, pay is rarely associated with social contribution. I don’t see how Johnny Depp or Lady Gaga have added to society, but they're both cashing big checks.

I generally agree on the ownership issue, but owners usually have a commodity. In this field, the players are that commodity, and having tried to throw a football 70 yards on rope (unsuccessfully), it's a rare commodity. This isn’t about the have and have nots. To me, they’re both haves. One group has the business end, and one group has the actual talent that we’re all willing to pay for. I guess I look at it this way. I would pay to watch the Broncos vs. Raiders anywhere. I wouldn’t pay to go to an empty Mile High.

Actually, the entertainment industry is a bad model here, IMO.

If anything, what is happening there is more asinine that what is happening in the NFL . . .

-----

Northman
03-13-2011, 04:09 PM
so what it was filed minutes before lockout was i dont understand what that means in the big picture. its function is still only to counter a lockout... im starting to think you guys are just argueing to argue. you dont make any points just dancing around semantics like its the OJ trial


Oh, i believe that you dont understand Bull, i really do but its ok. Not everyone can understand things like this. Your still ok in my book. ;)

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 04:11 PM
Oh, i believe that you dont understand Bull, i really do but its ok. Not everyone can understand things like this. Your still ok in my book. ;)

its the swamp water round here, i think someone peed in it ;)

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 04:17 PM
so what it was filed minutes before lockout was i dont understand what that means in the big picture. its function is still only to counter a lockout... im starting to think you guys are just argueing to argue. you dont make any points just dancing around semantics like its the OJ trial

The nfl locked out only BECAUSE the union decertified.
chicken/egg
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 04:17 PM
Points of contention

NFL reporter Mike Klis looks at the primary issues in dispute between the NFL owners and the players union:

1. Revenues: The NFL generates about $9 billion in annual revenues. The owners take $1 billion off the top for game improvements such as stadium construction and the NFL Network, then give 59.6 percent of the remaining revenue to the players. The owners had wanted to take another $1 billion off the top. However, owners submitted a proposal Friday that lowered their asking price to $1.5 billion total.

2. The books: The union asked the owners for 10 years of audited financial records. Instead, the owners offered five years of club-by-club records.

3. Schedule: To make up for the players' reduced percentage of revenues, the owners want to grow the revenue pie by expanding the regular season from 16 to 18 games. The players don't want to play more games, citing the increased risk of injuries. The league countered Friday by saying it would stick with a 16-game schedule for an additional year, or through the 2012 season.

4. Down time: To compensate for the possibility of an expanded regular season, the owners proposed to reduce offseason workout programs from 14 weeks to nine, and organized training activity (OTA) practices from 14 to 10.

5. Rookie salary cap: The league's proposal said changes were only to first-round picks. The owners promised to reallocate savings from a first-round salary structure toward veterans and retirees. It's believed first-round picks will be restricted to four-year contracts. Currently, the top half of the round can get six-year contract and the bottom half gets five-year deals.

6. Medical and health benefits: Owners agreed to establish unspecified year-round health and safety rules and to set up a new legacy fund for retired players, contributing $82 million over the next two years.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

So, on these points, the owners did OFFER A COMPROMISE - apparently - not to the players', OR SMITH'S liking. Appears that Smith needs to take a course in Negotiations 101 :tsk:

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 04:20 PM
The nfl locked out only BECAUSE the union decertified.
chicken/egg
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

thats is crazy ignorant, its like saying i hit you in the head BECAUSE you put on a helmet.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 04:23 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

So, on these points, the owners did OFFER A COMPROMISE - apparently - not to the players', OR SMITH'S liking. Appears that Smith needs to take a course in Negotiations 101 :tsk:

Exactly. How many times did we all hear, from both sides, that to have the best deal, BOTH sides would have to feel cheated.
Funny, but the only side giving in, was the league.

Litigation is all the union wanted, from the get go. So said smith, the lawyer (95%).
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Shananahan
03-13-2011, 04:24 PM
I don't think it's really fair to jump all over the players based on the stuff the owners have since released for evidence of their willingness to negotiate. Why only offer the past five years of the books? The past five years are surely going to look worse than the five before that due to the overall decline of the economy. I also fail to see how promising to not stick with a 16-game schedule for one more season is any sort of compromise.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 04:25 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

So, on these points, the owners did OFFER A COMPROMISE - apparently - not to the players', OR SMITH'S liking. Appears that Smith needs to take a course in Negotiations 101 :tsk:

but why would you comprimise at all when your opponent started the fight and lost all their leverage?

no Smith knows exactly what hes doing hes milking every thing he can out of the owners and IMO they deserve what they get for starting the frucuss to begin with.

the important thing is we will lose no games this year and at most 2-4 weeks FA can start maybe even as soon as tomorrow.

what you are talking about is a comprimise not a business negotiation. in a negotiation you get what your leverage allows you to get and right now the players have it all

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 04:25 PM
When NFL owners declined the players' request for 10 years of audited financial records Friday, the union decertified, and later in the day filed a request for an injunction that would keep the NFL from engaging in a lockout. It was a tactical maneuver that moved the NFL labor dispute from the bargaining table in Washington to a courtroom in Minneapolis.

The NFL countered Friday night by announcing through its NFL Network and NFL.com that a lockout took effect at 10 p.m. MST Friday.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17598276

Definition countered - to act in opposition to. You do not counter, if there is NOTHING to counter to.

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 04:28 PM
thats is crazy ignorant, its like saying i hit you in the head BECAUSE you put on a helmet.

Decertifcation was an offensive attack. The lockout is a defensive retaliation.
Your analogy is bassackwards.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 04:32 PM
I don't think it's really fair to jump all over the players based on the stuff the owners have since released for evidence of their willingness to negotiate. Why only offer the past five years of the books? The past five years are surely going to look worse than the five before that due to the overall decline of the economy. I also fail to see how promising to not stick with a 16-game schedule for one more season is any sort of compromise.

Well, shouldn't the present economy be taken into account? I'm sure if it was vibrant the players would be using it to their advantage.
the nfl backed out in 2008; look back to see when economists said the economy started downhill.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 04:34 PM
Decertifcation was an offensive attack. The lockout is a defensive retaliation.
Your analogy is bassackwards.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

ill try and explain this to you again RC... you can only lock out a union.. therefore if you are not a union anymore you cannot be locked out. hence decertification. by definition its defensive even if some had the forsite to do it first.

but to your brain im guessing what you just saw was

*¤±Á¶, ]$◄9╣ ▓¡ RC, ÿ:║-☻

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 04:34 PM
but why would you comprimise at all when your opponent started the fight and lost all their leverage?

no Smith knows exactly what hes doing hes milking every thing he can out of the owners and IMO they deserve what they get for starting the frucuss to begin with.

the important thing is we will lose no games this year and at most 2-4 weeks FA can start maybe even as soon as tomorrow.

what you are talking about is a comprimise not a business negotiation. in a negotiation you get what your leverage allows you to get and right now the players have it all

The CBA had run out - it was time to negotiate a new one - remember the key word here - NEGOTIATE - ya know - GIVE AND TAKE

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 04:37 PM
ill try and explain this to you again RC... you can only lock out a union.. therefore if you are not a union anymore you cannot be locked out. hence decertification. by definition its defensive even if some had the forsite to do it first.

but to your brain im guessing what you just saw was

*¤±Á¶, ]$◄9╣ ▓¡ RC, ÿ:║-☻

No, I will NOT date you. NEVER ask me again!
:mad:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Shananahan
03-13-2011, 04:38 PM
Well, shouldn't the present economy be taken into account? I'm sure if it was vibrant the players would be using it to their advantage.
the nfl backed out in 2008; look back to see when economists said the economy started downhill.
This is a good point. I still don't see much of a compromise in showing only the worst half, though.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 04:39 PM
The CBA had run out - it was time to negotiate a new one - remember the key word here - NEGOTIATE

No Carol, in fact the CBA is a recurring deal that can be opted out of by either side, it did not run out, it was opted out by the owners not the players.. they could have continued with everything just fine.. the owners wanted to rock the boat and they fell in the wawa

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 04:40 PM
No, I will NOT date you. NEVER ask me again!
:mad:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

wow you are seeing what you want to see arent you? lol im flattered

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 04:55 PM
No Carol, in fact the CBA is a recurring deal that can be opted out of by either side, it did not run out, it was opted out by the owners not the players.. they could have continued with everything just fine.. the owners wanted to rock the boat and they fell in the wawa
This is from 2008:


http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true


The NFL earns very substantial revenues. But the clubs are obligated by the CBA to spend substantially more than half their revenues –almost $4.5 billion this year alone --on player costs. In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially --and at an ever increasing rate --in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs’ incentive to invest in the game is threatened. There are substantial other elements of the deal that simply are not working. For example, as interpreted by the courts, the current CBA effectively prohibits the clubs from recouping bonuses paid to players who subsequently breach their player contacts or refuse to perform. That is simply irrational and unfair to both fans and players who honor their contracts. Also irrational is that in the current system some rookies are able to secure contracts that pay them more than top proven veterans. Our objective is to fix these problems in a new CBA, one that will provide adequate incentives to grow the game, ensure the unparalleled competitive balance that has sustained our fans’ interest, and afford the players fair and increasing compensation and benefits.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 05:00 PM
wow you are seeing what you want to see arent you? lol im flattered
HAHAHA......And here you prolly thought you were just insulting my intelligence.

Can't help what YOU said with your 'glyphics.

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

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 05:04 PM
No Carol, in fact the CBA is a recurring deal that can be opted out of by either side, it did not run out, it was opted out by the owners not the players.. they could have continued with everything just fine.. the owners wanted to rock the boat and they fell in the wawa

OK - the owners opted out, which then ended the current CBA in 2010, SOOOOOOOOO, time to hit the negotiating tables. Once again - give and take - not one side gives, and the other takes.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2011, 05:12 PM
The NFL Players Association instructed players this past year to save 50 percent of their income so they would be able to weather a prolonged work stoppage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-lockout-redskins-players-prepare-for-uncertain-future/2011/03/11/ABOCRXR_story.html

IMO, just another piece of information which indicates that Smith had no intention of getting this done, UNLESS the owners caved in 100%

MNPatsFan
03-13-2011, 05:19 PM
Carol...I think, more than anything, the players just want to make sure that this money the owners are asking for is being put back in to the team and not back in to the owners' pockets. That'd be the only thing I could think of that would be a logical explanation for why they'd want to see the books.I can see and understand that, but I read an article detailing how the NFLPA monitors and authorizes the use of and the payments from the original $1 Billion and the requested $2 Billion the owners have asked to be taken out of the equation.

I will see if I can locate that article.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 06:37 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-lockout-redskins-players-prepare-for-uncertain-future/2011/03/11/ABOCRXR_story.html

IMO, just another piece of information which indicates that Smith had no intention of getting this done, UNLESS the owners caved in 100%

how is that different from the owners prepairing for a lockout unless the players caved 100%?

it it wasnt for Doty denieing them the 4 bill thats what would have happened.

both sides a dooshes but the owners deserve MORE wrath becasue the players are not the ones who opted out

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 06:41 PM
remeber the players were ok with the status quo... they asked the owners for nothing more than a look at thier books.. the OWNERS wanted to change things to the tune of 1 MORE billion cream, another 2 games, changing wage scales and about a billion other things...


tell mme this what do the players want? just to look at the books... they didnt say anything about more money less games ect

Shananahan
03-13-2011, 06:45 PM
Do you ever reread your own posts? If so, isn't it blatantly obvious how uninformed you are?

BroncoStud
03-13-2011, 06:47 PM
remeber the players were ok with the status quo... they asked the owners for nothing more than a look at thier books.. the OWNERS wanted to change things to the tune of 1 MORE billion cream, another 2 games, changing wage scales and about a billion other things...


tell mme this what do the players want? just to look at the books... they didnt say anything about more money less games ect

You simply don't get it, of course the players were ok with the status quo, they got a FAT deal last time around. Who in the hell can justify them getting 60% of the revenue-sharing, that's proposterous.

Lay them off and bring in new players. When they see the scabs playing for a lot less and the NFL making money without them, they will do like they did before and come back under the new terms. It's very simple in my mind.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 06:48 PM
Do you ever reread your own posts? If so, isn't it blatantly obvious how uninformed you are?

if you are talking about me, explain... real easy to make a blanket statement like that. why am i uninformed?

rcsodak
03-13-2011, 06:48 PM
how is that different from the owners prepairing for a lockout unless the players caved 100%?

it it wasnt for Doty denieing them the 4 bill thats what would have happened.

both sides a dooshes but the owners deserve MORE wrath becasue the players are not the ones who opted out
Lol
why WOULD the players opt out?
They've got no skin in the game and are making more and more money EVERY YEAR, regardless of the economy around them.

Lol
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

atwater27
03-13-2011, 06:49 PM
FYI, and brace yourself cuz this is a doooozy.....but....

.....pro wrestling isn't real.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

LMMFAO!!!!:laugh:

BroncoStud
03-13-2011, 07:09 PM
EXACTLY, why the hell should they give up a fat deal? WOULD YOU? NO you would fight tooth and nail to keep it!

and if the owners fck up again like they did last time and you see an oppertunity to get a fatter deal to punish em you would go for the jugular.

if the owners were smart they would have left well enough alone

I would not fight for a fat deal if it meant that the company I worked for couldn't run at full efficiency. With the rest of the world in a "recession" and unemployment at 9%, most have made concessions for future growth and the fragility of the economy. The players should be no different.

BroncoStud
03-13-2011, 07:12 PM
if someone offered you an NFL team would you consider it a risk? effing jackassery going around here

So suddenly spending $700 MILLION isn't a risk? Wow, I wish I had your kind of investment funds. I get neverous as hell every time I drop more money to expand my portfolio. If the bottom REALLY falls out there won't be people buying enough jerseys, buying enough tickets, paying for parking, buying beer and food at the games... Then that "risk" becomes a "hazard" and suddenly the owners are screwed.

All the while the players have no risk other than being out of a job.

So YES, there is absolutely risk when buying an NFL team.

BroncoStud
03-13-2011, 07:13 PM
thats pretty much the apex of your ignorance.

SKIN and BONES and breaks and bruises and concussions and debilitating syndromes due to all the contact and medical problems and shortened life spans and surguries and constant PAIN.. yea they have nothing invested.. **** here with that shit.. there isnt a single owner in franchise history that lost money in the NFL

pearls in front of pigs is what it is

The players are PAID WELL for their in-game risks, it has nothing to do with that. If they don't want to risk injury they're in the wrong business, go be a bus-driver or work at McDonald's.

This is about FINANCIAL risk and the fact they want 60% of the revenues without taking a penny of the financial risk. It's not difficult, why can't you grasp it dude?

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 07:13 PM
I would not fight for a fat deal if it meant that the company I worked for couldn't run at full efficiency. With the rest of the world in a "recession" and unemployment at 9%, most have made concessions for future growth and the fragility of the economy. The players should be no different.

NINE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR DUDE MORE THAN SOME COUNTRIES.

The owners and the NFL will never have a problem running thier business

BroncoStud
03-13-2011, 07:22 PM
NINE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR DUDE MORE THAN SOME COUNTRIES.

The owners and the NFL will never have a problem running thier business

Never say never. Either way it doesn't justify the players notion that they are entitled to this sort of compensation. It doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. Total nonsense.

If the season is cancelled, I'm done.

Bullgator
03-13-2011, 07:37 PM
Never say never. Either way it doesn't justify the players notion that they are entitled to this sort of compensation. It doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. Total nonsense.

If the season is cancelled, I'm done.

well ok you can lead a horse to water(no pun) but you cant make em drink..

i respect your opinion on the matter. regardless of what we think SHOULD be , the reality is this...

Doty will rule business as usual, and the NFL will have no leverage to get anything they want so most likely they will just revert to the old deal with some minor changes IF THEY ARE LUCKY

OR..

the players are getting ready to go ***** deep into the ownership for a second time since 87, sit back and enjoy

Lonestar
03-14-2011, 08:09 AM
it's really just legal semantics that you have to be a lawyer (or at least fluent in legaleeze) to really understand.

You can't lock out unorganized labour. In other words there has to be a union to lockout, not just employees. I don't get all the anti-trust ramifications, but as far as "we the people" are concerned, there's no important difference at this point (at least as far as I understand it).
In case you failed to notice. The players are acting in concert as "unorganized labor".
The irony of it all. It was the union that took a vote months ago to decertify. Yet decided to hold off till now to do so, knowning they've got federal judge in their pocket.
Talk about bad faith.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-14-2011, 09:00 AM
In case you failed to notice. The players are acting in concert as "unorganized labor".
The irony of it all. It was the union that took a vote months ago to decertify. Yet decided to hold off till now to do so, knowning they've got federal judge in their pocket.
Talk about bad faith.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums
And the counter by the league is that decertifying is just a ploy. Its gaming the judicial system. It was 20yrs ago....it is now.

What gets me, is the union 'asking' for the last 10yrs worth of books. Guess what! These owners need to project FORWARD. They're not in this for the short haul, and that's not how they made the money they have.
With the economy in the shitter, and expected to stay there, if not get worse, gas prices, etc, I don't blame the ownere one iota for wanting a more owner friendly contract. Players need to remember, without owners, there are no teams; I don't see anybody banging on doors wanting a franchise.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

SR
03-14-2011, 09:03 AM
The whole thing is just maddening. This is what happens when you have a bunch of selfish people trying to "negotiate". Good thing hockey season goes until June.

rcsodak
03-14-2011, 12:16 PM
The whole thing is just maddening. This is what happens when you have a bunch of selfish people trying to "negotiate". Good thing hockey season goes until June.
Hockey smockey. Nascar on skates. :coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

SR
03-14-2011, 12:42 PM
Go put your velcro gloves on, sheep ******.

gobroncsnv
03-14-2011, 01:40 PM
sad to see how "mistreated" these poor players are after devoting so much of their youth to get into a league that keeps them so poor and humble.
It's not like the deal has substantially changed that renders a career in the NFL to a lousy lifestyle, and you can't make any money in it. I have no problem with them riding their talent and preparation as far as they can, but to hear these guys claim that they have any semblance of a grievance that they are enduring is abject and utter nonsense. Sorry, boys, but try life on the outside o the NFL, take your chances at the economic conditions that the rest of us face. (remember us, the people that make the league a viable enterprise, since WE pay the freight for this?) Lose the fanbase at your peril to keepthe league remaining such a successful enterprise.

arapaho2
03-14-2011, 04:45 PM
Yes, the union decertified FIRST, then the owners locked them out. So, I still DO NOT understand how decertification on the players part would avoid a lockout. They have been locked out:confused:


i dont know if this is out already...but if the owners would have locked the players out pre decertify...then the players could not decertify for 6 months...meaning they could not sue to unduo the lockout until september

seeing that the owners made no move to lockout until after the decertifacation i doubt they would have as long as the negotiations continued...they know who butters their bread...the fans

i think demorice smith got his negotiating and personal skills from josh mcdanials....

SR
03-14-2011, 04:46 PM
i think demorice smith got his negotiating and personal skills from josh mcdanials....

Or he read the cliffnotes version of how to negotiate.

rcsodak
03-14-2011, 06:15 PM
Go put your velcro gloves on, sheep ******.
I hear you don't need the gloves if you wear AF boots. There's room in there for their hind legs.
:insert pic of sheep:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
03-14-2011, 08:07 PM
I hear you don't need the gloves if you wear AF boots. There's room in there for their hind legs.
:insert pic of sheep:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Zinger if I ever heard one.

But I salute all that serve and put their life in danger.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums