Consider that many of the owners ‘offers’ (healthcare and pensions) would have essentially been paid for by the players themselves with the $1B / $500M they were forking over. That’s why they didn’t counter – those proposals were a joke, as usual aimed at PR wins instead of agreements.

Really, if the players wanted enhanced retirement benefits they could implement them themselves without changing the profit sharing arrangement, and it would cost them less than $1B or $500M.

The owners have not offered much in return for a massive cash return.

Furthermore, they have an anti-trust exemption, so they are under some restrictions that not every business is. It isn’t factually correct to say the can act unfettered like every business in America. And, again, the owners want that anti-truest exemption. It wasn’t forced on them.

What, exactly, were your expectations for the players in this case?

But the players are under no obligation to concede anything.

Can they succeed in doing that? I dunno. But you play to win in business.

This thought that the players should HAVE to be giving stuff up in a negotiation is just strange to me. In many negotiations I’ve been in the answer has been ‘no’.

It’s starting to sound uni-bomberish from you.

I’ve never made any effort to hide my political liberalism. As you’ve pointed out, anyone should be able to get that from my take on various issues. However, this is a football blog, and I don’t believe it’s an appropriate place for any of us to be whacking people over the head with our politics. You keep calling me a democrat, but I am vehemently opposed to the American party system, and therefore, have never been a registered member of any political party. That is a FACT, not some attempt at elusiveness. I have voted for and actively campaigned for candidates from both major parties.

Capitalism is an economic system and I do not define myself in economic terms, so I do not understand why you keep saying I call myself a capitalist. That just isn’t a term I would use for self-description. I have said I believe in free markets–and I do with some restrictions. I strongly support government regulation of business and believe deregulation is directly responsible for our current economic crises. I do believe in some socialized programs, which the U.S. has had since long before I was born. The fire service, the police service, and Social Security are examples of government-sponsored programs that serve everyone regardless of personal wealth.

My first loyalty is to my faith, and I believe the love of money is the root of all evil, and that we have a duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

I’m female, so I don’t have balls. But I’m not afraid to speak my mind to you or anyone else. It just happens that my thoughts are a little more complicated than $$$$$$$.

Don’t presume to know where my views originated. I rarely watch network news, and when I do, I check all the networks to get a well-rounded sampling of coverage. I have a journalism degree and years of experience doing my own reporting so I know where to go for accurate information. I also spent more than four years living with combatants in ghetto projects in a guerilla war zone and am well aware how easily reporting can be distorted by lazy journalists and the intervention of governments and business interests.

And I know how to listen to people with varying viewpoints because I’m smart enough to understand that no one side is all right or all wrong. That’s something which couldn’t possibly penetrate the pea brain of someone who stomps through blogsites calling everyone with whom he disagrees “comrade” and telling them how they think when he knows nothing about them. All you’ve done is demonstrate the pitifully limited scope of your own thinking.

As for the so-called “liberal” media, the television networks are owned by monster corporations whose only agenda is to make more money. While individual journalists may lean toward social liberalism, the “media” in the larger sense is financially vested in maintaining the status quo.

We all have our priorities, airraid77. You’ve made very clear in every post that your chief concern in life is money–helping the rich get as much as they can and passing laws that ensure they keep it. But money isn’t my Achilles’ heel. I’ve lived with the poor where we had to pool our resources for food and a place to sleep. I’ve had surgery under a socialized health plan. The red scare won’t work on me. Don’t bet your life on how I’d want the law applied.

Now that was disappointing. I have been accused of many things but never of following the crowd–any crowd, failing to think for myself, or fearing to stand alone for an unpopular position. You’re just wildly throwing poop at the wall and hoping something sticks. That doesn’t take any thought at all. Neither does the “comrade” stuff.

sorry andrewfbrowne, you are totally incorrect. Although true the NFL (or any organization) cannot ultimately keep funds they receive from tickets if they do not hold the event……there is absolutely no requirement they hold it in escrow. If the NFL wanted to spend the funds and provide any potential refunds from somewhere else, that is up to them…..

———————-

You really wrote a post whose only purpose is to take Andrew to task for a poor choice of words, all the while agreeing with his point?

The NFL teams have to be prepared to refund the season ticket money until such a time as they know the games will happen. How they go about preparing for that possible eventuality is up to them. Therefore, they can not truly treat the money as revenue at this time.

“The union decertified to litigate, have yet submit a counter proposal.”

This is untrue. Status Quo is, in fact, a counter-proposal.

————————–

I disagree with that. Status Quo may be what the union proposes but that is no more than an initial proposal. They have not given an updated proposal (counter proposal) since then. The NFL has given several updated proposals since the start of negotiations. The NFLPA has not given a single updated proposal.

Would it upset you terribly to learn I’m not a member of the party of, a-hem, “subversives”? I have no party affiliation. Independent thinker.

Would it upset you terribly to learn I’m not a Democrat?

This is untrue. Status Quo is, in fact, a counter-proposal.

FACT: its the owners money. NOT THE PLAYERS, NOT FANS. Nobody put a gun to anybodies head to buy ticket or sign a contract.
THE PLAYERS SIGNED THE SAME CBA THE OWNERS DID THAT ALLOWED EITHER SIDE TO BACK OUT OF THE AGREEMENT. Meaning that the players were stupid enough to let it happen.
FACT:
The union decertified to litigate, have yet submit a counter proposal.

Thanks

Thx

NFL Season Tickets- The Opiate of the people !

Hey there …

Not sure what you mean by not trying too hard. This is no effort for me–I know where I stand. Like you, I follow my team and don’t hero-worship any players. When I talk about supporting the players, I mean as a labor force. I’m pro-labor as a rule and have supported the NFLPA since I was old enough to understand that the owners exploited players like farm animals for nearly a century. That doesn’t mean I’m thrilled with players who waste their money on strip clubs and bling. It doesn’t mean I don’t still respect the Rooneys and other ethical owners. But I believe the better argument is on the players’ side.

Yes, there’s a compromise to be had here. Unfortunately, the owners–as a unit–did what they’ve always done: They went after this like lords of the manor. They planned their lockout strategy for two years believing the players would cave in to the pressure of being starved out. They dilly-dallied for months, refusing to engage in good-faith negotiations, rejecting a player proposal that would have put their piece of the revenue pie back to 2002 levels. They demanded an extra billion off the top, refused to provide data to support their demands, muddying the waters with nonsense about expanded season and loopy fines, pushed the players up against the deadline when they could react, then called what they assumed was the players’ bluff. It wasn’t. Recent court cases suggest the owners will not win a long-term court case, but they’re still expecting the players to cave before it goes that far.

The players can’t return to the negotiating table without assurance from the owners that negotiating as a unit will not be used against them in the decertification suit. The owners refuse to provide that assurance. The owners can end this today by lifting the lockout, imposing last year’s rules, continuing the season, and giving the players the legal assurances they need to resume negotiating. Once a new agreement is in place, the players will drop the antitrust suits. It’s the owners–or enough of them to prevent the rest from acting–who are keeping this thing going. If the Eighth Circuit rules against them and lifts the lockout, maybe they’ll adjust their strategy. We’ll see.

As for the players not being irreplaceable … oh, they can be replaced, all right. But there are 1700 players in the league and about 300 come out each year–most of whom don’t make it into the league. If the NFL suddenly fired every player–which would be the business equivalent of slicing through their own jugulars–it would take years to rebuild the league from scratch to the talent level we have now. But the owners aren’t going to commit mass suicide even if a lot of PFT commenters who don’t appreciate the skills of professional athletes think they should. That’s why they’re billionaires and the people saying “Fire them,” are making minimum wage. I think you’re smarter than that.

Bottom line for me is that the owners are the ones demanding more money and have shut down the league to get it. They’re the ones causing the layoffs, etc., and none of it was necessary. If they’d negotiated in good faith, this would have been resolved months ago.

What if there is no season and you have to refund that money back to people and you do not have it because you paid the employees with it? You want to talk about legal battles.

What this should show everyone is the margins for the NFL are a whole lot smaller than folks realize.

Now now … I’ve never claimed to be a capitalist while advocating spreading the wealth. I’ve simply sided with the players in this labor dispute. You’re the one who keeps applying–or I should say misapplying–economic and political labels to the NFL labor discussion.

For the record, I believe in the democratic principle of one person/one vote … in the Biblical principle that the love of money is the root of all evil … and in the Bull Durham principle of long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.