What I originally said to you was removed / not allowed (probably for what I said about your “conclusions” for those who don’t agree with you)……..so, I will just leave it at :

They players are WRONG. And, it is showing more and more.

That said it would be the smart strategy for both sides not to slam the others to the media but the union heads are failing the worst at it.

————————————————-
The players don’t own a television network or have corporate partners and a Web site to spread their message or an army of shills posting on sites like this (how many of these pro-owner user names do you recognize?). With all due respect, if you think they’re doing the lion’s share of slamming, you’re out of your mind.

Spare me. Like most people on here, you blame the players either because a) they are guys making millions to play a game and you’re a jealous couch potato, or b) you believe anyone who questions the greed of big business is a socialist instigator.

The players have not asked for more money. The players have not threatened to strike. The players are not the ones who’ve launched a propaganda war. The players are simply trying to protect themselves and ascertain why they’re being asked to take a slice off the top of the revenue pie before calculating their percentages. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-20110313,0,5359904.column It’s a perfectly reasonable question, so why won’t the owners answer it?

The owners (meaning a powerful contingent of owners, not all owners) signed an agreement they didn’t want, and didn’t intend to honor, in order to buy time.
_________

Didn’t intend to honor it? They DID honor the last CBA. It had an opt out clause and they used it. Are you saying the union didn’t agree the owners could (therefore WOULD) opt out? If they didn’t agree, why would they sign it?

It doesn’t why the owners are negotiating a NEW agreement. The CBA expired and they are negotiating. The union wants nothing less than the last agreement and are not negotiating a new contract. They are now using your (and my) tax dollars in order to maintain status quo on THEIR billions…….but, I guess you are happy with your tax dollars being used to see who gets a larger percentage of $9B……I for one am not. And for that reason alone, I blame the players. If the players union isn’t strong enough to negotiate the players best interests without using my tax dollars, why is it needed?

Of course, except when you take into account canceled OTA’s, players being able to work out at team facilities, and coaches being able to work with & talk to players…

Yep, in no way is this disrupting their preparation.

It was the players who insist they need to hold back more revenue but refuse to show anyone why. Oops, that was the owners.

_____________

They don’t need to show anyone why. You are acting like they are trying to modify a current agreement. They aren’t. The current agreement expired……which the union allowed (why agree to an opt out clause if you don’t think it will be used AND agree it can be used?).

The owners are negotiating a NEW agreement and the union wants nothing less than the last agreement (refusal to negotiate).

The owners took less profit in the last CBA and they want more in this CBA. Plain and simple.

The owners forced themselves over a barrel and demanded that the players needed more profit in the last CBA……..”Oops, that was the” players………..and why thhere was an opt out clause.

It was the players who decided to opt out of the CBA two years early. Oops, that was the owners.

_________________

So you are saying that the clause was in the last CBA without the Union knowing about it? Oops, that was the players who allowed it to be in there…..

So….yes……the players agreed to “opt out” 2 years early.

And the decertification was set in motion as soon as pen was set to paper. The union knew the owners would opt out because it was a bad deal and the players would never negoiate for less than what that CBA gave them.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, chap. The time you spend taking everything said to you on a television network as gospel would be better spent reading history books. The only reason you believe the evidence says all the blame rests on the players is because you’ve been spoonfed a lot of anti-labor pap and swallowed it without question.

The owners (meaning a powerful contingent of owners, not all owners) signed an agreement they didn’t want, and didn’t intend to honor, in order to buy time. They instructed their television partners to withhold some of their revenue stream and funnel it into a lockout fund that would finance them during cessation of business. They hired a lockout specialist to lead their negotiating team. Most people could connect the dots and see they intended to lock out the players, who tried to circumvent this move by decertifying.

Never in the history of the world has any ownership group provided any safety measure or benefit to any group of workers that wasn’t won through collective efforts. Whether or not you work in a union shop, you benefit from the men and women who gave their lives in those efforts.

Unions have become too powerful in some instances and mave have overreached in some of their demands, making it difficult for businesses to function effectively. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t and aren’t needed, or that corporate America has suddenly become trustworth and magnanimous.

@oldbyrd …

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist. And when publicly traded companies layoff workers or slash benefits, they provide evidence that their revenues have taken a hit.

These aren’t publicly held companies but they are organizations that could not generate any revenue without the cooperation of these players. They have a long history of being disingenuous with their players, who can’t be blamed for wanting to see documentation before agreeing to give up close to a billion dollars.

I am a businessman and generally anti-union. But the relationship between the players and the owners is not an employee-employer relationship as you apparently understand it.

The NFL has referred to the players numerous times (when they aren’t involved in a CBA negotiation) as PARTNERS. This is in fact true to the extent that player compensation is DIRECTLY TIED to revenues.

Now the league wants to pull a billion dollars out of that pie and their partners want to know why. Sounds reasonable.

Not really a “socialist” concept, not that you probably really have any understanding of what that means, either.

Yes, of course, all of the evidence points to it being the players fault.

It was the players who decided to opt out of the CBA two years early. Oops, that was the owners.

It was the players who insist they need to hold back more revenue but refuse to show anyone why. Oops, that was the owners.

It was the players who want to get paid less to play more games. Oops, that was the owners.

Listen, if you want side with the owners because you’re jealous of people you consider inferior to you getting to drive cars you don’t get to drive, sleep with women who wouldn’t look twice at you, live in houses you wouldn’t be allowed to step foot in, and just generally have a life 1000% better than yours, so be it.

But don’t pretend the facts are on your side.

“..they shouldn’t say it is the players fault when all of the evidence says it was the players fault?”

To the best of my knowledge, the players have not “flat-out refused” to give back $1 billion (or any portion thereof), they just want to know why. Considering the amount being asked, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.

Besides, wasn’t a lockout part of the owners plans all along? Weren’t they hoping to sit back and collect their “lockout insurance” while starving the players out?

And based on the last offer from the owners to the players, it looks like the players could have gotten a deal not much worse than the one which was unanimously cancelled by the owners.

BTW: Is trading players or draft picks allowed during the lockout period or during the draft? I guess so, but is it?