Despite the continued growing bias of this site, it is the players fault and Goodell is on point. Get over it.

By the way.. I notice you always call NFLLabor an owner driven propaganda site, but you never seem to mention nfllockout with the same disdain. Strange…
_____________________________
Agreed. I never even knew about that nfllockout site until a poster on here mentioned it. It’s outrageously childish.

I would also like a poll on how many people are sick to death of the constant and voluminous accusations of “ZOMG!!1111 OWNERSHILLS!!!1111 NFL LEAGUE PLANTS!!!!11!!!”
Give it a bleeping rest already. Most of you who make that accusation (regardless of the side you are accusing of shills) say that because you have no proper retort, which is evidenced in the rest of your responses with those accusations. That’s how childish namecalling and strawman arguments work: “when there’s doubt, call someone else out”. I thumbs down every single post I see that does that regardless of the side that makes the accusation.

liontomyself says:
So, what “started all of this” was the players allowing the opt out in the last CBA (see? I can do it too)

Actually, you can’t. The previous CBA expired. No one opted out.

A few posters are pointing out that the owners were within their rights when they opted out of the last CBA. I agree, however:

1. That doesn’t change the fact that the owners opting out started this mess, and

2. If the owners have the right to opt out, the players also have the right to decertify. You can’t have it both ways.
———————————————-
I would like to point out that your second point is incorrect.

Opting out only signals that negotiations need to happen. Opting out gives the owners no leverage over the players. The tools in a union/management labor negotiation are supposed to be the lockout for the owners and the strike for the players.

Decertification is supposed to be a remedy for a labor force stuck in a bad union. It was never intended to be a negotiating tactic for the union to gain leverage with management. Make no mistake, the union does exist, in all but name.

Now that I have been reading Philadelphia fans’ pro-management comments on this site the last few weeks, I cannot wait for the Cowboys to pound Philadelphia’s faces into the ground again once the season starts.

Funny thing is, I doubt the Eaglets’ players would agree with all of the crap their fans are writing on this site.

There is a far greater disparity of revenue generated between the top baseball teams vs the lower income teams than there is in the NFL.

And even in a worst case scenario, no one here can figure out who “The Yankees” will be. In other threads posters have said it would be the Redskins, Cowboys, or Patriots. You think it’ll be the Giants, but why not the Jets?

And MLB isn’t quite the competitive balance disaster people try to make it out to be. Nine different teams have won the World Series over the past ten years.

Actually, you can’t. The previous CBA expired. No one opted out.

A few posters are pointing out that the owners were within their rights when they opted out of the last CBA. I agree, however:

1. That doesn’t change the fact that the owners opting out started this mess, and

2. If the owners have the right to opt out, the players also have the right to decertify. You can’t have it both ways.

I agree that all salaries will rise without a salary cap in due time, as they did in baseball. I equate removing the salary cap will hurt the small players to taxing the rich will hurt jobs for the middle class. It’s a sham used by wealthy people to retain their wealth. However, the salary cap is the necessary trade off for the salary floor. Which in football is necessary for competitive balance. Your baseball analogy works perfectly, my team (the ny giants) will just outspend everyone else and become the Yankees. There will be 5 top teams and the small market owners will squeeze every last cent out of their teams living off revenue sharing and big market teams coming to town. That is why you need a cap.

There was a clear Option 4 – continue to negotiate. You state that the owners would not budge yet by all accounts the last proposal offered up by the owners contained a series of concessions.

The offer may not have good enough for the NFLPA to wholly accept so the next step should have been further negotiations and a counter proposal by the NFLPA however the NFLPA choose decertification and litigation.

I am not sure how you can so blatantly dismiss the option for continued negotiations.

The owners by their contractual right within the CBA choose to opt out. They did not break a contract. The opted out as was their right.

Both parties choose not to begin serious discussions until the proverbial 11th hour…..which is sadly typical of many negotiations.

Why walk away from the negotiations? Only one reason the NFLPA felt litigation was a better option than negotiations; they felt as litigation gave them greater leverage over the owners.

Now didn’t the team invest in that player, give him a place to workout, a good coach, teach him the Pro game, didn’t they help by promoting him, making him marketable?

I don’t think the players would be very happy if the Team they played for said “Hey we are partners I want half your Gatorade money.” I mean you can’t be a partner half the time!

Just cough up the financial data so both sides can negotiate with their eyes open. The one hand behind your back tactic was a mega-failure.
—————————————
The owners offered to give the players plenty of data but DeSmith refused to look at it for PR reasons. DeSmith admitted that himself.

What I don’t understand is why people who can’t be bothered to follow what’s going on in the lockout feel the need to show their ignorance of the issues?

What started this was Tagliabooo forcing a bad deal down the owner’s throats and the owners stupidly acquiescing. You know the CBA had an opt-out clause right? So the owners were abiding by the terms of the CBA that the players agreed to. Why do you have a problem with that?

and Warhorse was talking about owners creating an entirely new entity that would stand up to court scrutiny. Not going back with same arrangement they have now.

Let’s not forget that the owners already had a deal in place, and they chose to opt out of it. That, and nothing else, was what started all of this.

___________________

The players agreed the owners could opt out. Why else would it be in the last CBA? Did the players not sign the same CBA as the owners?And if someone can do something, you should assume someone WILL do something. So, the players agreed / allowed the owners to opt out.

And it was a bad deal for the owners (again, why else have an opt out?) so the players said, ok, you can opt out in couple of years if you truely don’t like it.

If it were a bad deal for the players and the owners were to state they were fine with it, do you think the players would not have opted out?

So, what “started all of this” was the players allowing the opt out in the last CBA (see? I can do it too)….players are wrong.

Go owners!

@commoncents: you are a well-kmown league/owner shill on this site, so ,yeah, please stop posting your propaganda here. You have always been against the players, and I assume that once a new CBA is agreed upon, you will go back to cleaning latrines again at your stadium. You are not a fan of the game – you are a shill for the owners.

If I were the owners, I would do two things: immediately (and publicly) open negotiations with the networks for an 18 game season; and make Tiki Barber and Iccky Woods be my poster children for life after football. The former would highlight the dangers of no CBA (no extra monies for extra games, no additional members on the roster, and without lifetime medical coverage, the players could nurse their injuries themselves). The former show how even stars end up broke, divorced, and relegated to selling programs on game day. Imagine if no player had a pension or medical and other benefits.

Just cough up the financial data so both sides can negotiate with their eyes open. The one hand behind your back tactic was a mega-failure.

Get it together already. Rookie and veteran free agents are in limbo, and the coaches are stuck in the middle. #debacle
——————————————————
Exactly…stop playing games and get serious. We all know that they just want to take more of the pie, so admit it, negotiate, and strike an effing deal already!

Yes, I do understand that the idea is quite untenable. That is why I said that they need to talk about it, line up high powered investors, and start exploring the option just to give the NFL something to think about. Perception and reality can often be confused; smoke and mirrors are all part of business.

I could debate some of your points, but why waste time on this.

Essentially, I just want this thing over and am not happy with either side, but its just business.

Get it together already. Rookie and veteran free agents are in limbo, and the coaches are stuck in the middle. #debacle

Good Lord, Roger… What a stunning insight! What next? Are you going to tell all of us ignorant heathens that the sun sets in the west as well?

The owners tried the “single entity” argument last year and the Supreme Court unanimously denied it, nine votes to zero.

Doing what you’re suggesting would be a clear anti-trust violation.

Really? Owners would scramble if the NFLPA tried to put together their own league?

In fantasy land…yes owners would be shaking in their boots. In the real world….the logistics of a player formed league would make the NFLPA pee themselves.

First….where would they play? A local HS stadium? Unless players are willing to take a massive paycut….most of the venues that would support such a league are at least partially owned by NFL owners (this would probably drive up the rent.

Second……the logisitics behind bankrolling such an endevor very difficult minus TV deals or merchandising stuff…..it would be a huge risk and really hard to pull off. An there would be no network willing to pay a massive TV deal on a league that’s probably going to fold like a pizza box.

Third……even if the NFLPA did take a risk and make the massive investment in such a league, the owners could declare the NFL lockout over 1 day before their season started and any player with a current contract couldn’t participate without being in breach of contract (i.e. everyone give their signing bonuses back). The NFLPA would go completely bankrupt in about six seconds from trying such an idiotic plan.

Do you have any idea what a massive logisitcal undertaking this all is?

The shares according to the owners will be determined according to the worth they put in the pile. So Snyder and Jones will be the biggest shareholders.

They will each still be able to make the individual decisions for each of their own perspective teams, and run them the way they want to, but obviously things will be tweaked.

They can then bring back the NFL, the exact way that we have grown to love it, and it wont matter what the players do then.

They can slot players pay according to position throughout the NFL, and the only extra money the stars will make will be according to their ability to market themselves to sponsors. They can build a retirement fund for former players.

Bonuses will be according to wins. In other words, the highest paid NFL QB this past year would have been Aaron Rogers.

This brings the incentive to play well.

League leaders will be bonused in prospective categories.

And if any of the owners dont want to do it……..they can take their teams to the UFL.

Likewise with the players.

Covered- here it is again:

Next someone will say “just negotiate!”, but in the real world that’s not a solve-all. If the owners refuse to budge on their position, what’s the sense?

[i]Owners didn’t compromise? Guess that last offer which gave so much of what the players wanted wasn’t a compromise? Or couldn’t be used as a basis to work something out?[/i]

What offer was that?

Let’s not forget that the owners already had a deal in place, and they chose to opt out of it. That, and nothing else, was what started all of this.

mystictate says:
May 5, 2011 4:07 PM
I keep reading here that the owners forced the players to decertify

Not one, not two, but THREE of the pro-owner zealots need to take “Reading and Comprehension 101″ class.

The author never said the players were “forced” to decertify and litigate, he said that he didn’t blame them for doing so. Big difference there.

You might want to tone it down a little, pumpkin.

Countdown to having my critical post deleted–3 minutes.