What the hell are you talking about? The owners are only offering the players all kinds of things that they never had before in addition to solid health care and measures to reduce injuries (which the players can do simply by not trying to kill each other). How dare they only offer that, the greedy bastards!
Assuming this is true, the players are simply being dicks. I believed it before, I’m certain of it now.
Yup, the players look like the bad guys now. The owners essentially gave them everything they want and they compromised to within $185M on the revenue figure but the players refused to budge and stubbornly demanded full financial disclosure.
This is going to get long and ugly and I’m thinking the players will be the ones who lose a ton of money and all the credibility. The result of this lockout will be more similar to what happened in the NHL and less like what happened in the MLB.
According to PFT there’s a clause in the contract that says the owners can’t claim that the decertification is a sham. This would seem to prevent them from instituting a lockout.
I don’t see any way the clubs can win this.
Yeah, in reading the statements of position from both sides, the league is coming out looking pretty damn good here. If I were a player, I’d be screaming for Gene Upshaw to come back.
I’m not sure Zombie Gene Upshaw would really help the talks.
Luckily the players have the new anti-concussion helmets to protect them from him.
Who broadcasts the UFL games?
What made the strike ruinous to MLB is that the owners lost the strike. The MLBPA wouldn’t budge and the owners had to cave.
By comparison, the NHL’s lost season was a huge, huge win for the owners, because at the end of it they got the concessions they wanted.
It’s all about how the deal ends up after the strike.
MLB also lost because it canceled a World Series.
The NFL would never dare cancel the World Series!
Yeah, I’ve been on the players’ side but would really like to hear a justification as to why they turned an offer like that down. At the very least it’s close enough to stay at the table and tweak things a bit. From what I’ve heard, the compensation split is exactly what the union wanted by 2014.
Then again the devil is always in the details. I’d like to see the justification for turning this deal down. One possibility I’ve heard is that the players feel they have such a great chance in court, they may use the chance to try for more than they expected in the first place.
Versus and HDNet carried UFL games last season. According to the UFL web site, they have not yet announced a broadcast partner for 2011.
This was answered but without the keyword so in case it didn’t click for you, a large part of the negotiation is what % of revenue to set the salary cap.
My initial reaction was the same as yours until I remembered the salary cap.
So, I agree with you on much of this. But it’s not like the owners are much better in this regard, as Art Modell and John Irsay would like to remind you.
I thought all these things too until I saw the player’s side of things here:
*Issues which prevented a new NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement from being reached:
* The NFL demanded a multi-billion dollar giveback and refused to provide any legitimate financial information to justify it.
* The NFL's offer on March 7 to give the NFLPA a single sheet of numbers was NOT financial disclosure. The players' accountants and bankers advised that the "offered" information was meaningless: only two numbers for each year.
* The NFL wanted to turn the clock back on player compensation by four years, moving them back to where they were in 2007.
* The NFL offered no proposal at all for long-term share of revenues.
* NFL demanded 100 percent of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.
* The NFL refused to meet the players on significant changes to in-season, offseason or preseason health and safety rules.
* The NFL kept on the table its hypocritical demand for an 18-game season, despite its public claims to be working toward improving the heath and safety of players.
* The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers' compensation benefits for injured players.
* The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans into players' fourth and fifth years
* The players offered repeatedly to continue working under the existing CBA, but were rejected by the NFL five times.
* Despite publicly admitting no club was losing money, that TV ratings, sponsorship money, etc. were at an all time high, the NFL continued to insist on an 18-percent rollback in the players' share of revenues and continue to deny the NFLPA's request for justification.*
I mean…what’s really going on here? How can anyone tell whom is negotiating in good faith and what is being offered? Christ, what a cock-up.
The NFL Owners haven’t, and don’t want to, open their books to the players. That hasn’t changed since the founding of the NFL, and I doubt it will now. If you think the players should have access to the owners’ full books, then the players are right. If not, the owners are right. Depends on where you stand, and, how much, if any, information you think the owners should provide.
[quote=FGIE}* The NFL wanted to turn the clock back on player compensation by four years, moving them back to where they were in 2007.
* The NFL offered no proposal at all for long-term share of revenues.
* NFL demanded 100 percent of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.
* The NFL refused to meet the players on significant changes to in-season, offseason or preseason health and safety rules.
* The NFL kept on the table its hypocritical demand for an 18-game season, despite its public claims to be working toward improving the heath and safety of players.
* The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers’ compensation benefits for injured players.
* The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans into players’ fourth and fifth years
* The players offered repeatedly to continue working under the existing CBA, but were rejected by the NFL five times.
* Despite publicly admitting no club was losing money, that TV ratings, sponsorship money, etc. were at an all time high, the NFL continued to insist on an 18-percent rollback in the players’ share of revenues and continue to deny the NFLPA’s request for justification.*[/quote]
Money.
That’s what it is all about. Money.
There are no good guys/bad guys. Just guys fighting over pieces in a big ole pie. The owners want a “rollback” in salaries, the players want to keep the percentage they have. The owners want a decreased salary cap, the players don’t. The parties can’t agree on the money, so here we are.
It’s all about the money. And until one side or the other get too worried about the money (losing game revenues or not getting paychecks) to compromise, not much will get done. It will be in the hands of Anti-trust attorneys and federal judges for now and the foreseeable future. And both sides will continue to play the PR game. Just don’t believe a word they say.
I believe every word they both say. But when I see the owners’ offer and what the players are complaining about, I see one side willing to bargain and the other side just making demands. Everybody has to give up something, and the owners, to all appearances, have given up a lot. Now it’s the players’ turn, and they simply make more demands.
The owners have been planning the lockout for years. They structured the TV contract so they would still be paid during a lockout. They listed lockout money in the contract .
The owners are not bargaining in good faith.
Didn’t a court decision recently forbid the owners accessing that $?
Yes. The point being the lockout was planned. The judges decision might make the owners end the lockout earlier.