PDA

View Full Version : NFLPA cites owners' fixed-salary offer



Denver Native (Carol)
03-18-2011, 04:31 PM
This just gets more CHILDISH by the minute :tsk:


MARCO ISLAND, Fla. -- The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth.

"That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players -- player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said former 13-year offensive lineman Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative who retired after the 2008 season.

Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo."

Kendall said that throughout negotiations, the players' chance to share in increased revenues had been a key component of how to divide the NFL's yearly take of more than $9 billion.

He said the discussions until talks stopped last Friday -- the 16th day of federal mediation -- always revolved around the premise that if the rise in league revenues exceeded a certain percentage each year, players would get a cut.

"If the union had a problem, the best course of action would have been to make a counterproposal, continue to discuss the issue, or explain the problem," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "They were in such a hurry to get out of the room last Friday and file their lawsuit that they never mentioned this ... issue."

Aiello wrote that the league "made it clear" there would be an opportunity for players to get a share of extra revenues starting in 2015, "to reflect revenue growth generated from new stadiums, new television contracts, a possible shift to an 18-game season, and other potential opportunities."

full article - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940

arapaho2
03-18-2011, 04:46 PM
This just gets more CHILDISH by the minute :tsk:



full article - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940


the NFLPA is losing more an more credibilty



im more an more willing to see the owners just say...we are continueing with our season...if any player wishes to play, honor their existing contract, or is a free agent and wants to play, report by__________ or you will be deemed in breach of contract, will not be paid and by agreement between all clubs and owners will not be brought back by any team...the league goes on

good luck in your future endeavors

bcbronc
03-18-2011, 04:59 PM
What's unreasonable about the players wanting a share of any increased revenue? That not only seems reasonable, but obvious.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
03-18-2011, 05:11 PM
What's unreasonable about the players wanting a share of any increased revenue? That not only seems reasonable, but obvious.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

From article:


"If the union had a problem, the best course of action would have been to make a counterproposal, continue to discuss the issue, or explain the problem," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "They were in such a hurry to get out of the room last Friday and file their lawsuit that they never mentioned this ... issue."

Reasonable or NOT - if this was a problem to them, why did they NOT bring it up during the negotiations, rather than wait until NOW to bring it up???? The owners can NOT negotiate a certain item, if they do NOT know the players have a problem with it!!!!!!!

arapaho2
03-18-2011, 05:12 PM
What's unreasonable about the players wanting a share of any increased revenue? That not only seems reasonable, but obvious.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


because players like haveing meals catered...they like the new stadiums being built that are not free...

and you musta missed the part where shareing increased rev was already in the leagues offer starting in 2015

gobroncsnv
03-18-2011, 05:18 PM
Probably the best thing the league should do is to reimburse every city in the land that used ANY tax money (including bonds) to fund the construction of any stadium used by the NFL. especially, have it impact the particular owner in some way that held the city at "gunpoint" to drive up the fear factor to get those tax increases passed on ballot initiatives. This should happen before any player gets an extra nickel. Here again, hard to muster any sympathy for either side of the equation (players/owners) on this argument.

bcbronc
03-18-2011, 06:23 PM
From article:

Reasonable or NOT - if this was a problem to them, why did they NOT bring it up during the negotiations, rather than wait until NOW to bring it up???? The owners can NOT negotiate a certain item, if they do NOT know the players have a problem with it!!!!!!!

ya, my ability to read is fine, thanks. Yours, on the other hand, may need some work. ;) from the same article:


Kendall said that throughout negotiations, the players' chance to share in increased revenues had been a key component of how to divide the NFL's yearly take of more than $9 billion.

He said the discussions until talks stopped last Friday -- the 16th day of federal mediation -- always revolved around the premise that if the rise in league revenues exceeded a certain percentage each year, players would get a cut.

pretty clear the point is referring to the last minute offer the owners are all "shocked" wasn't accepted. The players are saying the reason they didn't accept that offer is because *suddenly* the proposal went from a fixed percentage of total revenue to a fixed total no matter what total revenue was.

but I'm sure you and rap would fully understand if your boss told you there would be no raises for three years no matter how the business was doing, rght?

zbeg
03-18-2011, 06:31 PM
From article:



Reasonable or NOT - if this was a problem to them, why did they NOT bring it up during the negotiations, rather than wait until NOW to bring it up???? The owners can NOT negotiate a certain item, if they do NOT know the players have a problem with it!!!!!!!

On ESPN radio, they reported that the owners waited until 4pm to give them the proposal, only an hour before the deadline. How genuine is the offer if they wait until the last second to offer it and not give them time to consider it, then say, "Hey, we made a good offer - they left it on the table?"

Denver Native (Carol)
03-18-2011, 06:34 PM
On ESPN radio, they reported that the owners waited until 4pm to give them the proposal, only an hour before the deadline. How genuine is the offer if they wait until the last second to offer it and not give them time to consider it, then say, "Hey, we made a good offer - they left it on the table?"

The players could have offered to extend the deadline, like had already been done, so they could review the latest owner's proposal, and come back to the negotiating table the following Monday, with their acceptance, or counter-offer, if they were really serious in trying to get something done. Just sayin

NightTerror218
03-18-2011, 07:26 PM
This just gets more CHILDISH by the minute :tsk:



full article - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940


So in my company (private firm) we are doing great last couple years and making tons of money. Does that mean the owners should give me a share of the revenue since they cant make as much money without all the employees?

HELL NO!!!!! Their company their money, same with the NFL.

Krugan
03-18-2011, 07:38 PM
ya, my ability to read is fine, thanks. Yours, on the other hand, may need some work. ;) from the same article:



pretty clear the point is referring to the last minute offer the owners are all "shocked" wasn't accepted. The players are saying the reason they didn't accept that offer is because *suddenly* the proposal went from a fixed percentage of total revenue to a fixed total no matter what total revenue was.

but I'm sure you and rap would fully understand if your boss told you there would be no raises for three years no matter how the business was doing, rght?

My last position had had a 3 year pay freeze, so you deal with it.

Shame that purchases are down, people dont have as much to spend, costs of everything else grows. Blah blah, same old economic questions...

Booo hooo, they signed a contract for sevices, which in most cases 6 figures in the least, so there really shouldnt be a lot of pity for someone who wants profit sharing making 6 figure or more incomes.

bcbronc
03-18-2011, 08:40 PM
My last position had had a 3 year pay freeze, so you deal with it.

Shame that purchases are down, people dont have as much to spend, costs of everything else grows. Blah blah, same old economic questions...

Booo hooo, they signed a contract for sevices, which in most cases 6 figures in the least, so there really shouldnt be a lot of pity for someone who wants profit sharing making 6 figure or more incomes.

you probably had less leverage than the players did.

no pity at all. But no pity for the owners making, in most cases 7 figures in the least, either. Not sure why the players are "childish" for not accepting a major concession which would potentially cost them millions collectively when it's thrown up last minute.

sure they could have extended the extension, but it really doesn't make a lick of difference either way. It's just too extremely rich sides bickering over an obscene amount of money generated by a game. not important, in the big picture. no reason for all the butt-hurt over it. imo.

Krugan
03-18-2011, 08:50 PM
you probably had less leverage than the players did.

no pity at all. But no pity for the owners making, in most cases 7 figures in the least, either. Not sure why the players are "childish" for not accepting a major concession which would potentially cost them millions collectively when it's thrown up last minute.

sure they could have extended the extension, but it really doesn't make a lick of difference either way. It's just too extremely rich sides bickering over an obscene amount of money generated by a game. not important, in the big picture. no reason for all the butt-hurt over it. imo.

Honestly, why should they have any leverage at all?

These owners are what keeps this game alive, if it werent for ownership, the league wouldnt be around.

The players are payed well for playing, yes playing.

The ownership made a poor choice years ago to create a situation where the players now feel entitled. is about time there is a change.

Its out of hand from all directions, ill give you that. But hopefully this will be a start to bring this down to earth abit.

bcbronc
03-18-2011, 09:01 PM
Honestly, why should they have any leverage at all?

These owners are what keeps this game alive, if it werent for ownership, the league wouldnt be around.

The players are payed well for playing, yes playing.

The ownership made a poor choice years ago to create a situation where the players now feel entitled. is about time there is a change.

Its out of hand from all directions, ill give you that. But hopefully this will be a start to bring this down to earth abit.

I've asked this before, but I'll ask again.

if the players took the millions they've already made and started their own league, and the owners went ahead and filled their roster with scabs, which game would you watch: the one with the best players in the world, or the one paid for by the current owners?

Denver Native (Carol)
03-18-2011, 09:01 PM
I have said it before, and will say it again, if they want to share in the profits, then they need to spend some of their profits on what the owners are paying for - their uniforms, their travel, their food, their training equipment, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and by the way, the owners should be able to have some of the profits that players make on endorsements, etc.

LordTrychon
03-18-2011, 09:05 PM
Well, seeing as how the owners were dealing with increasing costs and decreasing profit margins for the past 5 years while the players were seeing unprecedented wealth/growth in pay... I don't see why it would be unreasonable to have them have a few years with a limit on the growth.

bcbronc
03-18-2011, 09:07 PM
I have said it before, and will say it again, if they want to share in the profits, then they need to spend some of their profits on what the owners are paying for - their uniforms, their travel, their food, their training equipment, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and by the way, the owners should be able to have some of the profits that players make on endorsements, etc.

why? those are all costs of doing business.

as for owners getting profits of player endorsement deals, I'm all for it. Heck, let's take it one step further: EVERYONE in society gets to share in the profits. Instead of just the owners and players sharing the revenue, we'll give some to the schools and roads, cops and daycare.

Nationalize the NFL!

Benetto
03-18-2011, 09:11 PM
I'd rather NOT have NFL games played for a year and sacrifice Football Sundays, just so these rich, greedy players will not get what they want. Some of those guys go about life like everything should be handed to them.

HELL NO I don't want the NFL and the Owners to give these guys more money, so they can spend 50K at a night club on expensive champagne, and make it rain at strip clubs, buy more guns, hire attorneys so they can beat their GF's and get away with it, etc...I remember reading about Lance Briggs crashing his FERRARI and just ditching it cause he was trying to avoid a DUI. These Pieces of crap OWE the communities they live in...I am sick of hearing about these guys and their Off the field issues, and most definitely don't want them to be better funded in their late night criminal escapades.

These POS athletes go about living life like people owe them the world for doing what they love to do and get paid millions for...DON'T give the players anymore money...Lock out the season, close the business down, just don't give those guys any more than they signed their contracts for....Don't!

Denver Native (Carol)
03-18-2011, 09:13 PM
why? those are all costs of doing business.

as for owners getting profits of player endorsement deals, I'm all for it. Heck, let's take it one step further: EVERYONE in society gets to share in the profits. Instead of just the owners and players sharing the revenue, we'll give some to the schools and roads, cops and daycare.

Nationalize the NFL!

Those are all costs of doing business - how many employees get the clothes they wear to work paid for, get their food paid for? They use the salary they are paid to pay for those type of things. Have you ever seen/heard how much food the players go through at training camp???????

bcbronc
03-18-2011, 09:17 PM
Those are all costs of doing business - how many employees get the clothes they wear to work paid for, get their food paid for? They use the salary they are paid to pay for those type of things. Have you ever seen/heard how much food the players go through at training camp???????

how many other employees are also the product? feeding the players and making sure they've got the best equipment/travel/etc helps make sure they perform their best. It's a cost of production.

how many other products are expected to share the cost of production?

Denver Native (Carol)
03-18-2011, 09:23 PM
how many other employees are also the product? feeding the players and making sure they've got the best equipment/travel/etc helps make sure they perform their best. It's a cost of production.

how many other products are expected to share the cost of production?

ANY business is only as successful as their employees are - BUT in the real world, the employees are happy with their paychecks, and if lucky, their insurance, etc. paid for. THE END OF WHAT THEY RECEIVE for making the owner's business successful.

Northman
03-18-2011, 10:02 PM
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again.

if the players took the millions they've already made and started their own league, and the owners went ahead and filled their roster with scabs, which game would you watch: the one with the best players in the world, or the one paid for by the current owners?

Well, for starters the senario that the players would start their own league would never happen. They just are not that intelligent and quite frankly it would probably turn into another joke like XFL. Like most successful businesses you need structure and common sense. As a collective the players just dont have that and the way they have handled these negotiations is proof positive of that fact.

Secondly, although i think most fans would love to watch the best of the best play they would also have no problem watching guys who may not be as great but give the game 100% and dont cry about making millions or comparing themselves to slaves. Fact is, despite some of the problems with the owner side of the issue it fails in comparison to the cry babies and dipshits of the NFLPA.

HORSEPOWER 56
03-18-2011, 10:22 PM
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again.

if the players took the millions they've already made and started their own league, and the owners went ahead and filled their roster with scabs, which game would you watch: the one with the best players in the world, or the one paid for by the current owners?

If all the players pooled all of their "millions" (c'mon we know that most of these clowns live paycheck to paycheck so they can live their rap-star lifestyles) they still wouldn't have the net worth of one Arthur Blank (owner of Home Depot - net worth $1.3 Billion) or Bob Kraft (yum, love me some Mac & Cheese! - net worth $1.1 Billion).

The players are rich, the owners are WEALTHY. What, you don't think that even if the players had the dough to start up their own league (which they don't), that the owners couldn't just entice all the incoming college players to play for them in their league? Of course they could because they could PAY BETTER! Where would the players play? Jerry Jones just dropped $1.3 BILLION with a "B" on his new Cowboys' Stadium. Who's going to buy one for the players, Peyton the 100 million dollar man, Manning? Yeah, right...

What you're proposing is like if all the microsoft employees left microsoft and decided to try to start their own software company. Yeah, Bill Gates would just hire more people to replace them and his ex-employees would go on to file for bankruptcy...

There's a reason that certain folks are the boss (brains) and others are the employees (brawn). Just ask Adrian Peterson what he thinks, and that should tell you all you need to know...

gregbroncs
03-18-2011, 10:55 PM
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again.

if the players took the millions they've already made and started their own league, and the owners went ahead and filled their roster with scabs, which game would you watch: the one with the best players in the world, or the one paid for by the current owners?

You've asked before and it was answered before. The fans would watch the league with stadiums, jersey's, officials, coaches, Etc etc etc... You expect players to put their own money up to pay for these things? They won't. Therefore their league would never get started. And even if they did who will replace these player's once they get old? Not college kids because they would not have the money to join this league paid for by the player's. They would go to the league that has the money for these things.

bcbronc
03-18-2011, 11:23 PM
ANY business is only as successful as their employees are - BUT in the real world, the employees are happy with their paychecks, and if lucky, their insurance, etc. paid for. THE END OF WHAT THEY RECEIVE for making the owner's business successful.

lol, at comparing the NFL to the real world. that's cute, if a bit naive.


If all the players pooled all of their "millions" (c'mon we know that most of these clowns live paycheck to paycheck so they can live their rap-star lifestyles) they still wouldn't have the net worth of one Arthur Blank (owner of Home Depot - net worth $1.3 Billion) or Bob Kraft (yum, love me some Mac & Cheese! - net worth $1.1 Billion).

The players are rich, the owners are WEALTHY. What, you don't think that even if the players had the dough to start up their own league (which they don't), that the owners couldn't just entice all the incoming college players to play for them in their league? Of course they could because they could PAY BETTER! Where would the players play? Jerry Jones just dropped $1.3 BILLION with a "B" on his new Cowboys' Stadium. Who's going to buy one for the players, Peyton the 100 million dollar man, Manning? Yeah, right...

What you're proposing is like if all the microsoft employees left microsoft and decided to try to start their own software company. Yeah, Bill Gates would just hire more people to replace them and his ex-employees would go on to file for bankruptcy...

There's a reason that certain folks are the boss (brains) and others are the employees (brawn). Just ask Adrian Peterson what he thinks, and that should tell you all you need to know...

right, I forgot. all athletes are by default stupid thug-life rap star wannabes that couldnt successfully manage a 7-11. Not a single one in the lot has been able to successfully handle their money. :rolleyes:

you really think it would be tough to find another 32 stadiums and another 32 investor groups to partner with the players? Or even 16 to kick things off? This is obviously an extreme case and not likely to happen, but even just the threat would get the owners doing some thinking. You think Jerry Jones wants to fill his $1.3b stadium with scrubs while down in El Paso or San Antonio or who cares where they've got Tom Brady going up against Peyton Manning?

big difference between Microsoft and NFL, no one cares who wrote the code for the software program you're using. JUst like no one cares who signs the pay cheques at the end of the day. the NFL is a business, and the players and owners are partners in that business. but yeah, I can see why you guys are so filled with sympathy for those poor billionaire owners. :laugh:

Poet
03-18-2011, 11:35 PM
Honestly, why should they have any leverage at all?

These owners are what keeps this game alive, if it werent for ownership, the league wouldnt be around.

The players are payed well for playing, yes playing.

The ownership made a poor choice years ago to create a situation where the players now feel entitled. is about time there is a change.

Its out of hand from all directions, ill give you that. But hopefully this will be a start to bring this down to earth abit.
This is really out of touch. Take a look at all the owners, there are a ton of Johnny Come lately's.

That should tell you something, that the game is so popular because of parody and because of the other's sports shortcomings (no cap in baseball/steriods in baseball, NBA having the image of a thug league, Hockey's strike is still killing it and no one cares about soccer...ever).

In terms of health and promotion of the league, it's not all the owners that make stadiums sell out and the t.v. contracts happen. Just like it's not all the players.

The owners really get more credit than they should here.

Again, at this point I'm on the 'owners' side, but people are really out of touch.

These guys are all playing hardball. The 'good' deal that the owners offered was hardball. There's a big hitch for the NFLPA, but it's looking promising, but you have an hour to sign it?

After I read that offer I thought the players lost their damn minds. When I found out earlier today that they had an hour to sign it, it made more sense to me.

That's a fantastic negotiation tactic. I also have my doubts that an offer to extend would have helped. If that was what the owners needed, wouldn't they have offered another extension?

No matter what you guys read or hear, you have to remember that this works both ways.

I think it would be funny if the fans had a representative that reminded both sides that this 9 billion dollar business is about to run out.

IMO, the players need to realize that 60% of the profits does not need to be in their hands. The owners need to realize that with as much help as they get from the fans, they can put up with retirement benefits and that the last deal wasn't the 'woe-is-me' shit that they are saying.

Northman
03-19-2011, 12:10 AM
If all the players pooled all of their "millions" (c'mon we know that most of these clowns live paycheck to paycheck so they can live their rap-star lifestyles) they still wouldn't have the net worth of one Arthur Blank (owner of Home Depot - net worth $1.3 Billion) or Bob Kraft (yum, love me some Mac & Cheese! - net worth $1.1 Billion).

The players are rich, the owners are WEALTHY. What, you don't think that even if the players had the dough to start up their own league (which they don't), that the owners couldn't just entice all the incoming college players to play for them in their league? Of course they could because they could PAY BETTER! Where would the players play? Jerry Jones just dropped $1.3 BILLION with a "B" on his new Cowboys' Stadium. Who's going to buy one for the players, Peyton the 100 million dollar man, Manning? Yeah, right...

What you're proposing is like if all the microsoft employees left microsoft and decided to try to start their own software company. Yeah, Bill Gates would just hire more people to replace them and his ex-employees would go on to file for bankruptcy...

There's a reason that certain folks are the boss (brains) and others are the employees (brawn). Just ask Adrian Peterson what he thinks, and that should tell you all you need to know...

Spot on.

underrated29
03-19-2011, 12:23 AM
I think we also need to clarify some things about the owners and players.


1.The owners do NOT provide their clothing. They provide the players jerseys...BUT- And I say BUT- the owners do not actually provide those either. The sports companies do. Like REEBOK....They are the ones who pay to have it on there, they are the ones that will give the TEAMS anything they want. The owners do not do this....My friend works for the Colorado Avalanche and he is on the bench qiute frequently and he is NOT allowed to wear anything except RBK (reebok) if does, he is immediately fined thousands of dollars and then fired.

2.The owner do provide food, and tons of it at TC for the players and a few of the banquets they have.

3.The owners do have to pay for their stadiums and such, BUT- the employees that work at the beer stands are not from the owners (to my understanding, they are the beer stands or pizza huts employees)
3a. The owners do however make a ton of money off of the concessions and the rent that the concession places pay to be there. - I do not know if the players get a share of that or not. I think they do.
3b. The owners take in all the cash, when business host parties at the stadiums, car dealerships have shows there, bands and singer have concerts there, speakers come to speak....The owner bank all of that, and I am pretty sure the players do not.

4. Not all of the players get these big endorsments. In fact, I would say probably 1% do. Sure the peyton mannings and such bring in more money in one oreo commmercial then they do in their entire inflated contracts from the NFL are....But most players have zero endorsments. Just the big time hot shots. Maybe 100 total players...out of (32x 52)= too many that dont get endorsed.

5. The owners do pay for travel and hotels, they also pay for hotels and such during TC for newbs.

6. Owners pay the guaranteed salary part to camp body/TC cut players...you know the guys we have never heard of who get signed and compete but that is it. They get paid good money for that. The last girl I dated is good friends with Matt Prater (real good friends I think-she is a butter face though, not sure why he'd mess around with her but whatever) and she was saying that the other kickers, the punters they brought in make more in 1 day there then a 50k salary person....I do not remember the numbers I just remember doing the math and it was more than a salary of that much.



So while the Owners do pay for a lot. It is actually not all that much that they pay for for the players, food and board (equiptment too)...However, most players are not endorsed but the few that are more than make up for any that are not and then some...a whole lot some. The owners still cash in big time from their stadiums (off season concerts etc) which they do not share, but also rake it in with concessions, which i think they do share. All in all the players make out like bandits and are catered to very well, but lets not over blow what the owners do. They are well and dandy on their own.

sneakers
03-19-2011, 12:41 AM
I really don't care anymore.

bcbronc
03-19-2011, 01:12 AM
Peyton Manning and the big name endorsement guys should split their endorsement deals, at least a percentage, with all members of the PA. :solidarity:

LawDog
03-19-2011, 10:21 AM
"If the union had a problem, the best course of action would have been to make a counterproposal, continue to discuss the issue, or explain the problem," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "They were in such a hurry to get out of the room last Friday and file their lawsuit that they never mentioned this ... issue."

(Bolding Carol's)

According to this article by Mike Silver, Aiello is seriously spinning...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-disrespectedunion031111

"Even after negotiating a pair of extensions, the league’s negotiating team showed up this past Monday without displaying a sense of urgency. On Thursday afternoon – with Friday’s deadline looming – Smith and other union negotiators left the FMCS building and walked back to NFLPA headquarters. They were told by Cohen to expect a call before 4:30 p.m., at which point they’d be summoned to return for another session of talks.

The union officials waited as 4:30 arrived, then 5, but the call never came. Finally, Atallah learned via a reporter’s post on Twitter that the owners who’d been in attendance were on a conference call with the rest of the league’s owners.

Said Atallah: “I turned to De and said, ‘Oh, that’s funny – we were supposed to be over there right now. “He said, ‘Are you serious?’ At 6:15 we called the mediator’s office, and he told us, ‘Well, they’re packing up to go, so we’re not doing anything tonight.’ And then we heard they all went to dinner.

... snip ...

Still, after receiving the offer at 1 p.m. Eastern time, the NFLPA prepared a counter proposal as the deadline approached. In receiving permission to decertify during votes with individual teams over the past eight months, the union had stated it would do so no later than eight hours before the CBA’s expiration – meaning it had to initiate the action by 4 p.m. The league, Atallah said, was aware of this, but commissioner Roger Goodell and his fellow negotiators showed up 20 minutes late to a scheduled 3:30 meeting.

By then, the NFLPA had secured a one-hour extension via the 32 teams’ player representatives, and Smith didn’t bother presenting the counter-offer. Instead, he said the union would forestall its decertification plans and agree to another short-term extension only if the owners agreed to provide 10 years’ worth of audited financial statements – something they had forcefully resisted throughout the week.

It was under that backdrop that Smith went outside and enunciated that stance to reporters, then walked back to the NFLPA’s offices to see if the owners would respond within the next 15 minutes. They didn’t – and the union decertified at 5:02 p.m."

rcsodak
03-19-2011, 12:10 PM
ya, my ability to read is fine, thanks. Yours, on the other hand, may need some work. ;) from the same article:

pretty clear the point is referring to the last minute offer the owners are all "shocked" wasn't accepted. The players are saying the reason they didn't accept that offer is because *suddenly* the proposal went from a fixed percentage of total revenue to a fixed total no matter what total revenue was.

but I'm sure you and rap would fully understand if your boss told you there would be no raises for three years no matter how the business was doing, rght?

Well, since I've been in that boat, and survived it, I'm sure some millionaires can also, bc, if I know that it will only better my companies footing.

rcsodak
03-19-2011, 12:12 PM
On ESPN radio, they reported that the owners waited until 4pm to give them the proposal, only an hour before the deadline. How genuine is the offer if they wait until the last second to offer it and not give them time to consider it, then say, "Hey, we made a good offer - they left it on the table?"
As Carol showed in her HIGHLIGHTING, it then becomes a chance for the players to COUNTER. Instead, they took their bankys and nuk-nuks and left the building.

rcsodak
03-19-2011, 12:16 PM
not important, in the big picture. no reason for all the butt-hurt over it. imo.

yup!

I can live without football for awhile.:coffee:

Denver Native (Carol)
03-19-2011, 12:19 PM
FROM SAME LINK LAWDOG POSTED


The NFL labor landscape was 15 minutes away from official implosion Friday when union leader DeMaurice Smith emerged from Federal Mediation Conciliation Service headquarters in Washington D.C. and addressed a swarm of reporters.

Standing on the corner of 21st and K Street, the NFL Players Association’s executive director made a brief, forceful statement that delivered one final dare to the league’s owners: Agree to open your books within the quarter hour, or prepare for a battle royale.

Given that Smith surely understood there was almost no chance of the owners accepting those terms, his pronouncement was quickly portrayed as a public relations move designed to cast the union as the side which made the last offer before talks broke down and decertification ensued. And while there may have been an element of truth in that thinking, most observers missed the point.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-disrespectedunion031111

rcsodak
03-19-2011, 12:22 PM
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again.

if the players took the millions they've already made and started their own league, and the owners went ahead and filled their roster with scabs, which game would you watch: the one with the best players in the world, or the one paid for by the current owners?

EPIC FAIL in the "new league", as I answered it the last time you asked.

How many would want to relinquish their "millions they've already made"?
They gonna coach also?
How many can run a business?
How many can balance their checkbooks?

And lastly....

...all the current players started from nothing, just as the new guys will be.

And tell me how many fans wouldn't be rooting for the underdogs! I know I sure as hell would.

rcsodak
03-19-2011, 12:26 PM
how many other employees are also the product? feeding the players and making sure they've got the best equipment/travel/etc helps make sure they perform their best. It's a cost of production.

how many other products are expected to share the cost of production?

Cost of production comes out BEFORE profit sharing, which, if I'm reading you right, think should be shared?

rcsodak
03-19-2011, 12:35 PM
I think we also need to clarify some things about the owners and players.


1.The owners do NOT provide their clothing. They provide the players jerseys...BUT- And I say BUT- the owners do not actually provide those either. The sports companies do. Like REEBOK....They are the ones who pay to have it on there, they are the ones that will give the TEAMS anything they want. The owners do not do this....My friend works for the Colorado Avalanche and he is on the bench qiute frequently and he is NOT allowed to wear anything except RBK (reebok) if does, he is immediately fined thousands of dollars and then fired.

2.The owner do provide food, and tons of it at TC for the players and a few of the banquets they have.

3.The owners do have to pay for their stadiums and such, BUT- the employees that work at the beer stands are not from the owners (to my understanding, they are the beer stands or pizza huts employees)
3a. The owners do however make a ton of money off of the concessions and the rent that the concession places pay to be there. - I do not know if the players get a share of that or not. I think they do.
3b. The owners take in all the cash, when business host parties at the stadiums, car dealerships have shows there, bands and singer have concerts there, speakers come to speak....The owner bank all of that, and I am pretty sure the players do not.

4. Not all of the players get these big endorsments. In fact, I would say probably 1% do. Sure the peyton mannings and such bring in more money in one oreo commmercial then they do in their entire inflated contracts from the NFL are....But most players have zero endorsments. Just the big time hot shots. Maybe 100 total players...out of (32x 52)= too many that dont get endorsed.

5. The owners do pay for travel and hotels, they also pay for hotels and such during TC for newbs.

6. Owners pay the guaranteed salary part to camp body/TC cut players...you know the guys we have never heard of who get signed and compete but that is it. They get paid good money for that. The last girl I dated is good friends with Matt Prater (real good friends I think-she is a butter face though, not sure why he'd mess around with her but whatever) and she was saying that the other kickers, the punters they brought in make more in 1 day there then a 50k salary person....I do not remember the numbers I just remember doing the math and it was more than a salary of that much.



So while the Owners do pay for a lot. It is actually not all that much that they pay for for the players, food and board (equiptment too)...However, most players are not endorsed but the few that are more than make up for any that are not and then some...a whole lot some. The owners still cash in big time from their stadiums (off season concerts etc) which they do not share, but also rake it in with concessions, which i think they do share. All in all the players make out like bandits and are catered to very well, but lets not over blow what the owners do. They are well and dandy on their own.

Don't forget the wages of all of the vendors, security, etc, 29. The owners cut isn't PURE profit. Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, but dont the stadiums have insurance to be paid? And the banks get paid? IIRC, alot of them aren't paid for.

rcsodak
03-19-2011, 12:40 PM
"If the union had a problem, the best course of action would have been to make a counterproposal, continue to discuss the issue, or explain the problem," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "They were in such a hurry to get out of the room last Friday and file their lawsuit that they never mentioned this ... issue."

(Bolding Carol's)

According to this article by Mike Silver, Aiello is seriously spinning...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-disrespectedunion031111

"Even after negotiating a pair of extensions, the league’s negotiating team showed up this past Monday without displaying a sense of urgency. On Thursday afternoon – with Friday’s deadline looming – Smith and other union negotiators left the FMCS building and walked back to NFLPA headquarters. They were told by Cohen to expect a call before 4:30 p.m., at which point they’d be summoned to return for another session of talks.

The union officials waited as 4:30 arrived, then 5, but the call never came. Finally, Atallah learned via a reporter’s post on Twitter that the owners who’d been in attendance were on a conference call with the rest of the league’s owners.

Said Atallah: “I turned to De and said, ‘Oh, that’s funny – we were supposed to be over there right now. “He said, ‘Are you serious?’ At 6:15 we called the mediator’s office, and he told us, ‘Well, they’re packing up to go, so we’re not doing anything tonight.’ And then we heard they all went to dinner.

... snip ...

Still, after receiving the offer at 1 p.m. Eastern time, the NFLPA prepared a counter proposal as the deadline approached. In receiving permission to decertify during votes with individual teams over the past eight months, the union had stated it would do so no later than eight hours before the CBA’s expiration – meaning it had to initiate the action by 4 p.m. The league, Atallah said, was aware of this, but commissioner Roger Goodell and his fellow negotiators showed up 20 minutes late to a scheduled 3:30 meeting.

By then, the NFLPA had secured a one-hour extension via the 32 teams’ player representatives, and Smith didn’t bother presenting the counter-offer. Instead, he said the union would forestall its decertification plans and agree to another short-term extension only if the owners agreed to provide 10 years’ worth of audited financial statements – something they had forcefully resisted throughout the week.

It was under that backdrop that Smith went outside and enunciated that stance to reporters, then walked back to the NFLPA’s offices to see if the owners would respond within the next 15 minutes. They didn’t – and the union decertified at 5:02 p.m."

So smith was playing hardball?

We knew that, dog. ;)

MNPatsFan
03-19-2011, 02:29 PM
By then, the NFLPA had secured a one-hour extension via the 32 teams’ player representatives, and Smith didn’t bother presenting the counter-offer. Instead, he said the union would forestall its decertification plans and agree to another short-term extension only if the owners agreed to provide 10 years’ worth of audited financial statements – something they had forcefully resisted throughout the week.

It was under that backdrop that Smith went outside and enunciated that stance to reporters, then walked back to the NFLPA’s offices to see if the owners would respond within the next 15 minutes. They didn’t – and the union decertified at 5:02 p.m."As rc pointed out, making their offer to agree to another short-term extension contingent on the owners agreeing to provide 10 years' worth of audited financial statements demonstrates the NFLPA was making a token showing of "negotiating" and was intent on de-certifying and filing suit.:tsk:

LawDog
03-19-2011, 03:59 PM
As rc pointed out, making their offer to agree to another short-term extension contingent on the owners agreeing to provide 10 years' worth of audited financial statements demonstrates the NFLPA was making a token showing of "negotiating" and was intent on de-certifying and filing suit.:tsk:

What happened on Friday had nothing to do with the negotiation part of the process. Both sides were only posturing at that time and not engaged in actual negotiations. The point I was making was that the league -- according to the article I linked -- was lollygagging around, finally made an offer at 1:00 and then showed up 20 minutes late to the 3:30 meeting, knowing that 4:00 was when the NFLPA had to act. Based on that, Smith said they would extend if the league agreed to the disclosure, then 15 minutes later initiated the decertification process.

Aiello wants to make it sound like the league is all reason and accomodation, while the NFLPA was having none of it and only wanted to rush out of the building and decertify. That's not accurate - thus my comment about the spinning on Aiello's part.

EDIT - as for RC's point about the NFLPA having as their original plan to decertify and litigate, that may be, but I wasn't commenting on that one way or the other.

BroncoStud
03-19-2011, 05:28 PM
Ok, simply move on with new players, ones who are willing to play under the new contract. There would be any number of college and semi-pro players ready to jump to the NFL and give it their all.

I don't think this is a difficult problem. Bring in scabs and let the current NFL drones try their hand at getting "real" jobs...

gregbroncs
03-19-2011, 09:53 PM
I think we also need to clarify some things about the owners and players.


1.The owners do NOT provide their clothing. They provide the players jerseys...BUT- And I say BUT- the owners do not actually provide those either. The sports companies do. Like REEBOK....They are the ones who pay to have it on there, they are the ones that will give the TEAMS anything they want. The owners do not do this....My friend works for the Colorado Avalanche and he is on the bench qiute frequently and he is NOT allowed to wear anything except RBK (reebok) if does, he is immediately fined thousands of dollars and then fired.

2.The owner do provide food, and tons of it at TC for the players and a few of the banquets they have.

3.The owners do have to pay for their stadiums and such, BUT- the employees that work at the beer stands are not from the owners (to my understanding, they are the beer stands or pizza huts employees)
3a. The owners do however make a ton of money off of the concessions and the rent that the concession places pay to be there. - I do not know if the players get a share of that or not. I think they do.
3b. The owners take in all the cash, when business host parties at the stadiums, car dealerships have shows there, bands and singer have concerts there, speakers come to speak....The owner bank all of that, and I am pretty sure the players do not.

4. Not all of the players get these big endorsments. In fact, I would say probably 1% do. Sure the peyton mannings and such bring in more money in one oreo commmercial then they do in their entire inflated contracts from the NFL are....But most players have zero endorsments. Just the big time hot shots. Maybe 100 total players...out of (32x 52)= too many that dont get endorsed.

5. The owners do pay for travel and hotels, they also pay for hotels and such during TC for newbs.

6. Owners pay the guaranteed salary part to camp body/TC cut players...you know the guys we have never heard of who get signed and compete but that is it. They get paid good money for that. The last girl I dated is good friends with Matt Prater (real good friends I think-she is a butter face though, not sure why he'd mess around with her but whatever) and she was saying that the other kickers, the punters they brought in make more in 1 day there then a 50k salary person....I do not remember the numbers I just remember doing the math and it was more than a salary of that much.



So while the Owners do pay for a lot. It is actually not all that much that they pay for for the players, food and board (equiptment too)...However, most players are not endorsed but the few that are more than make up for any that are not and then some...a whole lot some. The owners still cash in big time from their stadiums (off season concerts etc) which they do not share, but also rake it in with concessions, which i think they do share. All in all the players make out like bandits and are catered to very well, but lets not over blow what the owners do. They are well and dandy on their own.

Why does it matter what the owner's use their stadiums for besides football? It's smart business for them to make money on their asset when it's not in use and the football player's have no say in that.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-19-2011, 10:25 PM
Why does it matter what the owner's use their stadiums for besides football? It's smart business for them to make money on their asset when it's not in use and the football player's have no say in that.

If the following is correct, Invesco Field is not owned by Pat Bowlen, who paid 25% of the cost.

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/DenverBroncos/newindex.htm

underrated29
03-19-2011, 10:55 PM
Don't forget the wages of all of the vendors, security, etc, 29. The owners cut isn't PURE profit. Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, but dont the stadiums have insurance to be paid? And the banks get paid? IIRC, alot of them aren't paid for.




I am fairly certain that the vendors are all paid by the vending company, NOT the owners. The owners make money from the vendors leasing space and from the profits but I dont think they pay those workers....Security is owners all the way. Insurance is on the owners all the way and from what I know most tax payers and such pay majority of the staduims. Or sponsors-aka pepsi center, invesco etc.

I do not know about merchandise sold in stadiums, someone would have to look that up. If the owners take most all of that or not.

underrated29
03-19-2011, 11:01 PM
Why does it matter what the owner's use their stadiums for besides football? It's smart business for them to make money on their asset when it's not in use and the football player's have no say in that.



You are right. they players do not have say in that. The point of that was for the people that are saying that the owners are paying for clothing, food, travel and blah blah blah and have tons of costs and are not making all that much, when in fact they are. because they can use those stadiums.

It also-as you are being selective here, shows that the players are making tons of endorsments and get free food and lodging and equiptment paid for by the owners.




Dont try to be so quick and stick me on a side here of Owners Vs Players. I am not playing that game. The rest of you can wage your own little wars about who is right and wrong and attack each others positions from there. I am not. I think both are at fault, and both are stupid, and I simply threw out info for BOTH sides clarifying some things.

rcsodak
03-20-2011, 05:26 PM
You are right. they players do not have say in that. The point of that was for the people that are saying that the owners are paying for clothing, food, travel and blah blah blah and have tons of costs and are not making all that much, when in fact they are. because they can use those stadiums.

It also-as you are being selective here, shows that the players are making tons of endorsments and get free food and lodging and equiptment paid for by the owners.

Dont try to be so quick and stick me on a side here of Owners Vs Players. I am not playing that game. The rest of you can wage your own little wars about who is right and wrong and attack each others positions from there. I am not. I think both are at fault, and both are stupid, and I simply threw out info for BOTH sides clarifying some things.
And you've got the fence post dents on your butt to PROVE it. :laugh:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

arapaho2
03-21-2011, 11:34 AM
ya, my ability to read is fine, thanks. Yours, on the other hand, may need some work. ;) from the same article:



pretty clear the point is referring to the last minute offer the owners are all "shocked" wasn't accepted. The players are saying the reason they didn't accept that offer is because *suddenly* the proposal went from a fixed percentage of total revenue to a fixed total no matter what total revenue was.

but I'm sure you and rap would fully understand if your boss told you there would be no raises for three years no matter how the business was doing, rght?


i havent had a raise in 5 years...last year we were reduced to 32 hours per week for 4 months...economics here is terrible...i feel i am lucky to have a job when so many dont...even though my checks now barely cover my cost of living without thrills....so excuse me if i dont feel sorry for men makeing millions of dollars per season to play 16--19 games, while i struggle to put food in front of my children :coffee:

Cugel
03-21-2011, 12:16 PM
the NFLPA is losing more an more credibilty

im more an more willing to see the owners just say...we are continueing with our season...if any player wishes to play, honor their existing contract, or is a free agent and wants to play, report by__________ or you will be deemed in breach of contract, will not be paid and by agreement between all clubs and owners will not be brought back by any team...the league goes on

good luck in your future endeavors

Well, I'm NOT. :coffee:

I am certainly UNwilling to pay top dollar to watch a bunch of arena-league quality rejects or crappy nobodies stumble around out there.

If they want to put a bunch of useless scabs in Broncos uniforms like the strike games of 1987 they can do it without me. I will neither watch nor go to any games. Period. :coffee:

The OWNERS created this crisis because they are greedy ******** who already have BILLIONS but it's never enough! Pat Bowlen, owning a team worth $1.1 BILLION is actually POVERTY-STRICKEN compared with the REAL aristocrats like Jerry Jones -- worth over $2 billion.

These ass-hats have LITERALLY got more money than they could spend in the remainder of their lives!

If they have a problem with "revenues" then let them sell a portion of their stock in their teams! The values of each franchise only go UP every year!

Pat could get about $50 million for even a few percent of the Broncos. If he needs another couple of $100 million mansions in the south of France, or a fleet of luxury yachts, and $50 million or so isn't enough, then let him sell the team and realize on the profits on his investment!

Cugel
03-21-2011, 12:24 PM
i havent had a raise in 5 years...last year we were reduced to 32 hours per week for 4 months...economics here is terrible...i feel i am lucky to have a job when so many dont...even though my checks now barely cover my cost of living without thrills....so excuse me if i dont feel sorry for men makeing millions of dollars per season to play 16--19 games, while i struggle to put food in front of my children :coffee:

But, apparently you DO feel sorry for a bunch of BILLIONAIRE owners who have hundreds of times the amount of money of Albert Haynesworth?

They should get more of the pie? The old CBA wasn't good enough? They had to cut the players' salaries? Why?

Because they complain that they aren't getting enough "revenue" income? When the value of Pat Bowlen's Broncos increased from the $78 million he bought it at to $1.1. BILLION according to Forbes Magazine -- that's clearly NOT ENOUGH for these greed-heads?

The absurdity of working class people who are struggling to make a living supporting a group of greedy aristocrats who show absolutely NO concern for you is blinding.

Are these owners going to give you even a 1 penny refund if they get an extra $2 billion in revenues? Will ticket prices or concession prices go down or up?

What do you get if the owners win? Nothing. If the Players were asking for more of the pie and endangering the season, THEY'D be wrong.

But, since it's the owners, THEY'RE wrong! And not one fan ought to support them. :coffee:

arapaho2
03-21-2011, 01:11 PM
But, apparently you DO feel sorry for a bunch of BILLIONAIRE owners who have hundreds of times the amount of money of Albert Haynesworth?

They should get more of the pie? The old CBA wasn't good enough? They had to cut the players' salaries? Why?

Because they complain that they aren't getting enough "revenue" income? When the value of Pat Bowlen's Broncos increased from the $78 million he bought it at to $1.1. BILLION according to Forbes Magazine -- that's clearly NOT ENOUGH for these greed-heads?

The absurdity of working class people who are struggling to make a living supporting a group of greedy aristocrats who show absolutely NO concern for you is blinding.

Are these owners going to give you even a 1 penny refund if they get an extra $2 billion in revenues? Will ticket prices or concession prices go down or up?

What do you get if the owners win? Nothing. If the Players were asking for more of the pie and endangering the season, THEY'D be wrong.

But, since it's the owners, THEY'RE wrong! And not one fan ought to support them. :coffee:

wrong...were did i say that...i dont feel sorry for any of them

right now it seems the only ones making a effort to settle this is the owners...with the players crying foul, no fair, poor us, pity poor little me

they make millions to play a game for a team that is a BUSINESS of the owner

in the owners offer i failed to see a wage cut...infact i seen a cap increase to 166 million in a couple years with a minimun much higher then it is now

so get this straight...i work hard to barely make ends meet, in some months it dont meet, so forgive me if i see a substantial offer and increase in cap for the players, with additional revenue share of increased funds in 2015, only to watch the players turn it down and i dont feel sorry for them...in this case the story is about the players turning down a solid offer so we can enjoy football again...sorry if i dont feel like joining them in the boohoo line...

rcsodak
03-21-2011, 03:33 PM
I hardly think a team of ex college players, ufl players, arena players would be as bad as some make it sound.

Teams would be on even ground with each other, so they would most likely be more competitive. At least they'd be playing for the love of the game.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
03-21-2011, 03:37 PM
If they want to put a bunch of useless scabs in Broncos uniforms like the strike games of 1987 they can do it without me. I will neither watch nor go to any games. Period. :coffee:



Dont let the door hit ya in the ass when you go.

underrated29
03-21-2011, 03:55 PM
I hardly think a team of ex college players, ufl players, arena players would be as bad as some make it sound.

Teams would be on even ground with each other, so they would most likely be more competitive. At least they'd be playing for the love of the game.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums



it would be pretty bad....Tatum bell or Travis Henry- one of those two guys set the all time arena football league rushing record with like 300 yards in a game. now it remains to be seen if travis henrys children or rudi johnsons luggage was on either end of the endzone and they kept running the opposite way. But we do know that those players are no where as good.

rcsodak
03-21-2011, 04:12 PM
Dont let the door hit ya in the ass when you go.
:hi5:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-21-2011, 04:13 PM
it would be pretty bad....Tatum bell or Travis Henry- one of those two guys set the all time arena football league rushing record with like 300 yards in a game. now it remains to be seen if travis henrys children or rudi johnsons luggage was on either end of the endzone and they kept running the opposite way. But we do know that those players are no where as good.
Have you watched any afl/ufl games?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

arapaho2
03-21-2011, 04:39 PM
I hardly think a team of ex college players, ufl players, arena players would be as bad as some make it sound.

Teams would be on even ground with each other, so they would most likely be more competitive. At least they'd be playing for the love of the game.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


exactly...its not like were gonna have peyton manning and the full strength colts going against the broncos with a castoffs and missfits

werre all gonna be equal in talent, all in the same boat...i'd watch and still root for the broncos

Poet
03-21-2011, 04:40 PM
I hardly think a team of ex college players, ufl players, arena players would be as bad as some make it sound.

Teams would be on even ground with each other, so they would most likely be more competitive. At least they'd be playing for the love of the game.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Yeah, because that makes sense. They'd be playing for the love of getting paid to do a job that they really aren't qualified to do.

rcsodak
03-21-2011, 05:03 PM
Yeah, because that makes sense. They'd be playing for the love of getting paid to do a job that they really aren't qualified to do.
Your point?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums