When you ask for $1B from a entity you share profits with, that party is entitled to ask why you need it and to show cause. The NFL made only a flimsy attempt to show how the lack of this $1B was going to lead to a meltdown.

Then, after refusing to provide the disclosure that any business partner would be expected to show a partner in a profit-sharing arrangement being changed, they lowered their “must have or it’s over” figure by 50%. Then they leaked that they’d lower it by more. That suggests that the whole thing was BS.

[First of all, they really aren't partners. The players take on no risks, responsibilities, decision making or financial investments in running the teams or league. They are employees who are paid based on a percentage of the income. They don't become partners just because they can help the league avoid anti-trust laws by agreeing to a CBA. They agree because it's also in the best interest of ALL of the players in the union not just it's stars, and it is vital to the competitiveness and health of the league which ensures their big salaries.
The "must have or it's over" figure isn't BS, it's simply a common negotiating tactic. People & companies do it all the time! Make an offer, counter an offer. Done with houses, cars, salaries, you name it.
By the way, in the past, how would the players have responded if they were asked to open their books when they were demanding more money?]

And it never passed the smell test as the NFL is more popular and making more money than ever.

[The cost of running a team has also gone up considerably. That cost eats into the owners profits each year and doesn't touch the player's profits. So the player's percentage of the television revenue will stay the same while the owner's profit percentage will decrease. Not saying they can't live off that, just that's where they're coming from.]

And the team they chose to represent the owners in all of this were comprised of the most belligerent and adversarial that could have possibly been chosen.

[The same has (accurately) been said of who the union elected as it's representitive - D Smith.]

That is what we call a bad-faith negotiation.

[Bad faith is when you decertify to avoid negotiating and push law suites; then later recertify.]

And that was foolish, especially in light of the fact that the players ALWAYS had the option to go to court and win. The owners never stood a chance. The law was against them, they needed to back off the demand for the massive handout.

[The players truly don't want to go to court and win because it would be the death knell for the leauge as they know it and the loss of significant money to all but the stars.]

They lost. It’s over. And now, for the first time in many of these trust-fund babies lives, they must live with the consequences.

[It's not over until the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which has a history of being pro business) makes it's ruling on the matter.]

They banked EVERYTHING on having that TV war chest to carry them over. When they lost that, they had no fallback plan. They still don’t.

[The game unfortunately is only approaching half-time. There is a ways to go yet.]

Pathetic.

[Both sides are.]

The players, most of them, are uneducated, ignorant, dont have good communication skills,…they should take what the owners offer,..otherwise the smartest of the bunch might get the primo jobs, the drive thru guy,..get to wear that headset…and the majority of the rest will try and make a living selling crack, or be like the rest of their family,..on welfare and food stamps.
___________________
Actually the vast majority of players have college degrees. Something I am reasonably sure you’ve never heard of.

The NFLPA can’t reform. Remember that was the NFL’s argument. That decertifying was a sham. If the NFLPA recertifies they have proven the NFL’s point. If Nelson had only clue this is what the players were going to do then there would be perfect grounds for impeachment.

I’m no labor law expert, but I’m not so sure this holds water. Once the NFLPA decertified, the players were not bound by any collective bargaining. Theoretically, and perhaps matter of factually, any player could have taken any deal from any team had there not been a lockout. The mere fact that that would have been possible means that it was not a sham.

However, given the lockout, the players were barred from attempting to sign with teams.

On the other hand, if there was no lockout, and if players all colluded to not sign with any teams, then one could reasonably argue a sham.

So, I think you’re incorrect, and I think the NFLPA will one day again recertify as a union. Like they did 20 years ago (or whenever they last did this).

That said, the most likely way to get to football is to have a negotiated agreement.

So I say the NFL should call the NFLPA’s bluff and implement draconian work rules.
I mean, they’re probably going to lose the eventual anti-trust case anyway, so why not implement rules that force the NFLPA to come back to the table because it would institute an immediate revolt by the members of the NFLPA. Sure they’d get overturned eventually, but would all the potential free agents and rookies be willing to forgo this free agent season waiting it out?

I would suggest: 8 years of service time before you become a free agent, mandatory rookie contracts of league minimum for 5 years, outlawing signing bonuses, removing the salary floor, and dropping the salary cap by 20 or 40 million, reducing restricted free agent tenders to league minimum, etc.

I mean I suppose the courts could stop all that, but could the anti-trust suit really be heard and resolved before games start?

The only way to proceed is for the owners to threaten the loss of playoffs and SuperBowl because they constitute a collusion among owners. In fact, the whole season needs to be rescheduled, with each team finding playing partners, setting game rules. The TV contract may have to be voided and each team negotiate a new contract for TV, shrinking the pie.

All of this is required with no collective bargaining agreement. The players, of course, will sue to prevent this, but then they want their cake and eat it too. Only the reforming of the union and a CBA can avoid this.

If Judge Nelson or Dotty rule against this, then the NFL can appeal as the courts are requiring the NFL to violate the law.

^This

Otherwise known as ‘DIVIDE AND CONQUER’

And, it isn’t political! I am a conservative Republican and I tend to side with the players on at least one issue: I’m deadset against the 18 game regular season and find it ludicrous that the owners tell the players essentially: “take a billion dollar paycut and while you’re at it play two more games so we can wring more money out of the networks and fans.”

Now tell me why should the players agree to such nonsense?

When you ask for $1B from a entity you share profits with, that party is entitled to ask why you need it and to show cause. The NFL made only a flimsy attempt to show how the lack of this $1B was going to lead to a meltdown.

Then, after refusing to provide the disclosure that any business partner would be expected to show a partner in a profit-sharing arrangement being changed, they lowered their “must have or it’s over” figure by 50%. Then they leaked that they’d lower it by more. That suggests that the whole thing was BS.

And it never passed the smell test as the NFL is more popular and making more money than ever.

All the while, the introduced BS distractions like the 18 game season, further muddying the waters of what was needed / what was at stake.

And the team they chose to represent the owners in all of this were comprised of the most belligerent and adversarial that could have possibly been chosen.

That is what we call a bad-faith negotiation.

And that was foolish, especially in light of the fact that the players ALWAYS had the option to go to court and win. The owners never stood a chance. The law was against them, they needed to back off the demand for the massive handout.

They lost. It’s over. And now, for the first time in many of these trust-fund babies lives, they must live with the consequences.

They banked EVERYTHING on having that TV war chest to carry them over. When they lost that, they had no fallback plan. They still don’t.

Pathetic.

You people that think think the league wants to crush the union have it wrong. They need the union. They need a union to exist in order for the league to maintain any profit. The issue is this union wants to be unreasonable and the courts have let them so far. There is a very different dynamic than the last time the decert strategy was used.

The NFLPA can’t reform. Remember that was the NFL’s argument. That decertifying was a sham. If the NFLPA recertifies they have proven the NFL’s point. If Nelson had only clue this is what the players were going to do then there would be perfect grounds for impeachment.

—————————————————-

The joke’s on you. Both parties are comprised of rich fat-cats that prey on the ignorance of the electorate. There’s not a lot of difference between them, the objective of both is to fool the people into putting or keping them in power. The main difference is that nobody really votes for Democrats. They vote against Republicans.

Oh, but that won’t happen…because an NFL team is a license to print money.

Some of you are just professional suckers.

That makes as much sense as this:

The Eagles are up 41-14 in the 4th quarter. Rather than play the remaining 15 minutes, they can settle for a tie.

Seriously, stop it.

If there was no NFLPA and the owners were able to pay the players 80% less than what they are paying now…..are you THAT thick-headed to believe that the owners would still lower ticket prices to accomodate the fans even though many teams still have a 20 yr waiting list to pay the fortunes that are charged today???

When will you republicrites get it??? Your party is comprised of rich fat-cats that continue to prey on your ignorance! If they can’t get you on the anti-union discourse, they’ll try to get tug at other b.s. heartstrings like abortion and gun control b.s. Do you really think they care about those issues??? Get a clue!

The owners trek to success in court, and in the world of public opinion, is like climbing Everest naked.

Also if they never had a contingency plan in place in case they lost, who’s fault is that? Still the players? The key ruling was that the players can not be forced to remain a union and be forced into collective bargaining. The owners already succesfully divided, all they need to do now is conquer.