Skip to content

Next week’s mediation session has been canceled

special_education_law_judge Getty Images

After the NFL and the NFLPA* spent two days engaged in not-so-secret settlement talks in Chicago, the federal court in Minnesota has canceled formal mediation scheduled to reconvene on June 7.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the cancellation has indeed occurred, with the federal court explaining that “it is engaged in confidential settlement talks with the parties.”

This could mean that communications will continue, either in person or via other means, into next week and beyond.

It makes sense for the mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, to push the parties to try to settle the case now, before the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling on whether the lockout will be lifted.  After a final ruling is issued, one side will have a lot more leverage.  For now, the uncertainty can be used by both sides to strike a win-win deal.

That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.

Permalink 108 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
108 Responses to “Next week’s mediation session has been canceled”
  1. geo1113 says: Jun 2, 2011 3:45 PM

    That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.
    ________________________

    Why? So the players can cotinue to say no?

  2. realitypolice says: Jun 2, 2011 3:45 PM

    Judge Boylan looks tired.

  3. drmonkeyarmy says: Jun 2, 2011 3:46 PM

    So, you don’t find it incumbent on the players to actually respond to previous formal offers made?

  4. bdickey33 says: Jun 2, 2011 3:46 PM

    This is the first piece I have read that actually gives me a little hope this may finally be over soon!

  5. warmachine2112 says: Jun 2, 2011 3:47 PM

    Is it also, in your view, incumbent upon the NFLPA* to stop acting like a bunch of irresponsible tools and actually participate in negotiations?

  6. myballsmyrules says: Jun 2, 2011 3:47 PM

    “After a final ruling is issued, one side will have a lot more leverage. For now, the uncertainty can be used by both sides to strike a win-win deal.

    That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.”

    ****************************************

    After a final ruling is issued that sides WITH the owners, the league will have DEmoron by the cahoonas.

    That’s why, in my view, it’s incumbant on the players to be prepared to accept whatever offer the owners present to them instead of following DEmorons suicide litigation mission.

  7. vahawker says: Jun 2, 2011 3:48 PM

    “That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.”

    How many MORE offers does the NFL have to make before the PLayers make a counter? Why is not incumbant on the PLAYERS to make ANY kind of offer?

    Glad you don’t take sides.

  8. justanotherdummy says: Jun 2, 2011 3:49 PM

    I just don’t think either side is going to make a compromise. Why mediate when you can litigate and try to bend over your opponent? They are going to wait it out, and when one side gains an upper hand, then they will jam it down the other guys throat. If the players lose in court, they are going to get reamed a new one in the new deal. I think that trade association will crack badly if they start missing game checks. If the owners lose, they just play this year under last year’s rules, and have another go at breaking the players after next season.

  9. berniemadoffsides says: Jun 2, 2011 3:51 PM

    I’m pretty sure my heart may not last until September at this rate anyway. It’ll either give up from hopelessness or explode from rage.

  10. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 2, 2011 3:52 PM

    The reason the lawyers weren’t at the meetings is because of the hearing tomorrow. This news is either great or terrible.

  11. duanethomas says: Jun 2, 2011 3:53 PM

    That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.

    All they have to do is offer a fair deal and I’m sure it will taken to theplayers for a vote. If they insist on winning and crushing the players, there will be no football in 2011. The pie is big enough and you already get 1 billion off the top of the 9 billion dollars.

  12. ralphshere says: Jun 2, 2011 3:53 PM

    Right~friggin~on!!!

    Carpe` Diem!

    Git-er-done!

    This sounds extremely promising.

    C’mon Owners/Players: PLAY BALL !!

  13. billybats says: Jun 2, 2011 3:55 PM

    “That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.”

    Back to shilling for the NFLPA* again, huh Judge MF? Pathetic. And deleting my post won’t matter, everyone who visits this website realizes that.

    The NFL has made TWO bona fide offers, to which the NFLPA* has not bothered to respond. How about asking Jackie Chiles to get his butt over to the negotiating table and respond to the NFL owners’ offers?

  14. dapell says: Jun 2, 2011 3:56 PM

    The NFL has now made two offers to the NFLPA and then NFLPA* without a response or counter. Just a bunch of disingenious gum-flapping from De Smith about the “worst deal ever.”

    What do you want, the NFL to just continue to make offers with no response? The players are the ones who need to get their act together and be realistic here.

  15. bobwhitequail says: Jun 2, 2011 3:57 PM

    “That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.”

    But without the court firmly shutting down Jeffrey Kessler and De Smith, what is to stop them from just rejecting ANY proposal the NFL makes in order to keep the suits going? They have shown zero willingness to do anything but sue so far.

    It sure looks like that unless the court shuts Kessler down, he will just keep suing. He lives to sue and go to trial. He makes millions at it and the longer it goes the more he makes. Why would he want to stop and make a deal? He’s had numerous chances so far but he just keeps suing.

  16. rcali says: Jun 2, 2011 4:00 PM

    Sounds like this site is looking for another band aid. If the players win, the cost to consumers is going to be huge.

  17. airraid77 says: Jun 2, 2011 4:00 PM

    the Nfl has made at least one more offer than the players….Its up to the player to make a counter proposal. The owners dont owe a thing to anybody…..contrary to what the author(s) think. they could shut down the league in a ny second. and nobody gets anything.

  18. 8drinkminimum says: Jun 2, 2011 4:02 PM

    “It’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace”.

    “Genuinely” is in the eyes of the beholder. Any offer should at least be responded to with a counter offer. To date the players have chosen not to do so.

  19. cincinnasti says: Jun 2, 2011 4:03 PM

    That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.

    _________

    Isn’t it up to the players to make a counter offer to the NFL? I think the NFL has made several offers, the *NFLPA has rejected and refused to make and kind of counter offer.

  20. cam3420 says: Jun 2, 2011 4:03 PM

    CAN THE PLAYERS JUS SAY WTF THEY WANT ALREADY JESUS CHRIST, UR NOT GOING TO GET THE DEAL FROM 2007. SO COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. daboltfan says: Jun 2, 2011 4:04 PM

    I’d like to be the first to thank U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan for being the one to step-up and get the sides to talk. This is how it should be, there is no need to have the decision made by a court ruling. NFL is a tradition in our country, and everything that can be done, should be done to keep the foundations of the game the same while ensuring that it stays competitive. I love the draft and the free agency, Myself like many other fans, can’t wait for the league year to start and watch the cluster-f@#$ of moves that will be made in preparation to the season. I believe that the only way to ensure that these things, which have become so sacred to the fans like myself, are to continue, there must be a settlement and for the protection of the game, the players must sign a new CBA in order to protect the game from being attacked from would-be players who are being used by lawyers to make a few bucks. Both sides will benefit from the rules that the CBA ensures. Despite my personal beliefs on unions, a new CBA makes the most sense.

  22. ralphshere says: Jun 2, 2011 4:06 PM

    It sounds like the owners paid bashers are at it again.

    The news posted is positive, what other reson could there be for such negative rhetoric?

    Owners: if you are sincerely engaged in negotiation, can’t you muzzle your pack for a while?

  23. nineroutsider says: Jun 2, 2011 4:10 PM

    So this is still all good news right?

    Hurry up and strike a deal already! The players would be stupid not to do it before the ruling…I think they realize they have no chance in court…finally.

  24. jeff061 says: Jun 2, 2011 4:10 PM

    Your statement “it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal” is pretty ignorant and union slanted.

    You’ll note from day 1 – the problem hasn’t been w/ the owners making offers – its the NFLPA responding. Four offers in – they have not responded / countered once – with anything.

    All apart of the litigation first strategy. Now that the Union is on the cusp of getting spanked by the 8th Circuit – they are wisely coming around.

  25. duanethomas says: Jun 2, 2011 4:13 PM

    LISTEN TO WHAT BILL PARCELLS HAS TO SAY:

    “I think what makes this one a little bit different (is there) seems to be a little bit more hostility then normal,” Parcells told the station, via SportsRadioInterviews.com.

    “I think there’s a little more adamance on the side of the owners, and I think quite apparently the players are learning behavior from past experience in these negotiations is that if they stick to their guns they usually wind up better off.

    Even Bill Parcells who has forgotten more about football then you pro-owner shills will ever know, is stating the player have learned from the past and its in their benefit to stay the course. I say it again, owners be fair or there will be not 2011 season.

  26. rooneyruleblues says: Jun 2, 2011 4:13 PM

    Mike sides with the Players for a reason. They not the league pay his bills. The “news” from this site comes from Agents and players. Id guess mike spends 90% of his day talking to agents, and since the players have nothing going on, (contracts, trades, or otherwise) there is nothing good to report. It must get awfully messy cleaning your nose off at the end of each day mike.

  27. netherscourge says: Jun 2, 2011 4:13 PM

    So it’s official then? – A federal court is now overseeing the settlement meeting between NFLPA and the NFL Owners.

    No more mediators or arbitrators. Just a ton of lawyers and a Judge.

    /yawn

  28. billybats says: Jun 2, 2011 4:14 PM

    ralphshere says: “Owners: if you are sincerely engaged in negotiation, can’t you muzzle your pack for a while?”
    ********

    Ralphshere, if your union goons are sincerely engaged in negotiation, can’t you respond to two bona fide offers from the owners without complaining about all of the people who recognize how badly your union boys are behaving? Grow up.

  29. 305phinphan says: Jun 2, 2011 4:19 PM

    Enough already! The fans have already been dragged threw the mud and all we want is our football. So please players & owners swallow your pride and come together on a reasonable CBA and let free agency begin.

  30. spartyfi says: Jun 2, 2011 4:21 PM

    ralph, why exactly do you side with the players? Do you know why the owners opted out of the CBA? Because they got screwed on the last one and EVERYONE knows it. Even the owners knew it which is why there was an opt out clause. The owners just wanted to get something in place so they could play football and work on the next CBA…well, now the players EXPECT to get what they had before and the owners are telling their employees NO. Where’s the problem?

    Then, the players decertify which mean the NFL had to lock them out, they really had no choice at that point. Then the players sued and sued and sued…then tried to say the coaches were suing, but they weren’t!

    Owners gave 2 offers with no counter, yet it’s the owners you have an issue with? I guess when a brain stops working it stops working completely. I hope you can find a way to turn yours back on!

  31. billybats says: Jun 2, 2011 4:22 PM

    “duane thomas” sounds an awful lot like George Ayatollah of the NFLPA*. Hey George, tell your boss to actually counter the NFL’s offers while he still can.

  32. beerndonuts says: Jun 2, 2011 4:25 PM

    That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace…..

    Hasn’t the NFL made the last two offers? How many more do they need to make before the players will respond with a counteroffer of their own?

  33. ralphshere says: Jun 2, 2011 4:27 PM

    billybats sez: “Ralphshere, if your union goons are sincerely engaged in negotiation, can’t you respond to two bona fide offers from the owners without complaining about all of the people who recognize how badly your union boys are behaving?”

    At this point billybats, you have no knowledge of whom has responded to what.

    Are there two “bona fide” offers; or are there two rediculous insults?

    Have the players submitted a proposal?

    At this juncture, you simply do not know.

    Acting as if you do, is rather batty- billy.

  34. 2011to2020lions says: Jun 2, 2011 4:27 PM

    Just GET A DEAL DONE ALREADY!!!!!

  35. realfann says: Jun 2, 2011 4:29 PM

    There’s a difference between a confidential meeting where the proceedings are to be kept secret and a secret meeting where the act of meeting is in itself a secret.

    Otherwise the owners would not have leaked the fact of this meeting to their pals in the media.

    Right?

  36. bobwhitequail says: Jun 2, 2011 4:30 PM

    “It makes sense for …Boylan, to push the parties to try to settle the case now, before the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling on whether the lockout will be lifted…For now, the uncertainty can be used by both sides to strike a win-win deal.”

    Or it could be that Boylan thinks/knows? the court will side with the NFL and now is the time for the players to get what they can before they are in a weakened position.

    But so far Kessler and De Smith want to sue no matter what and it wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t really negotiate until every single lawsuit avenue is exhausted. Here’s hoping that the impending ruling will cause them to finally abandon lawuits as the way to get what they want. They’ll finally have to actually negoiate. Here’s hoping anyway…

  37. kc4life7 says: Jun 2, 2011 4:31 PM

    The news posted is positive, what other reson could there be for such negative rhetoric?

    Owners: if you are sincerely engaged in negotiation, can’t you muzzle your pack for a while?

    ____________________________

    These comments are so stupid. Why is anyone who sides with the owners supposedy “shills”.

    You really think the owners care about comments on a website like PFT enough to hire people to go on there and comment? Get real. They have more important things to worry about. Also, most of them have several other companies/investments they deal with on a daily basis.

    I’m sure PFT comments are right up there on their priority list to check daily.

  38. dccowboy says: Jun 2, 2011 4:31 PM

    So wait. Did he just say, “We’re canceling the mediation talks next week because we’re already in mediation talks?”

  39. endzonezombie says: Jun 2, 2011 4:32 PM

    On thing we have learned from this site: how absolutely stupid the pro-owner shills sound. I can’t wait for the settlement so that these morons are driven off this site. Lord knows they know little or nothing about football, and they will have nothing to harp about anymore.

  40. tommyf15 says: Jun 2, 2011 4:34 PM

    Why do I have the feeling that the same folks screaming over the players not making an offer would be screaming over whatever the players asked for?

  41. jakek2 says: Jun 2, 2011 4:38 PM

    The pro-owner comments are beyond comical. The art of negotiation is so over these people’s heads it’s a joke. The extent of their negotiating experience is haggling over a blender at a garage sale.

    1) Quit commenting on how great the owners’ offer(s) are. You have no idea.

    2) Any shrewd negotiator will not propose a counteroffer to “offer(s)” that are ridiculous. The fact that De hasn’t counteroffered can only lead us to the conclusion that the owners’ offer(s) are, in fact, ridiculous. Sort of like you offering me to buy my cherry 66 Mustang for $1. I won’t waste my breath giving you a counter.

    Now going ahead and prove my point by thumbs downing the only truthful comment in this thread.

  42. 1stngoal says: Jun 2, 2011 4:39 PM

    They should have locked the door and not let them out of the room until a deal was reached…

  43. duanethomas says: Jun 2, 2011 4:43 PM

    billybats says:
    Jun 2, 2011 4:22 PM
    “duane thomas” sounds an awful lot like George Ayatollah of the NFLPA*. Hey George, tell your boss to actually counter the NFL’s offers while he still can

    You sound an awful like a fool. You guys dont get it, unless the owners make a legitimate and fair offer there will be no football in 2011. Its not your constitutional right for there to be NFL football every fall. All you pro-owner shills go spend time with your fat wives and short bus riding kids on Sundays. Because there will be no football if the owners keep trying to win and not be fair.

  44. blarch says: Jun 2, 2011 4:45 PM

    Why does this blog have such a mindless bunch of pro owner dimwits? I’m on many football forums and this comment section skews pro owner more than any of them.

    You are all misguided in your hate of the players. Please share with the class your favorite owner related game moment. That moment that made you love football.

    This game exists because of the means of the owners and the TALENT of the players. They are equal partners. If you think the owners could create a league without paying for the best athletes in the world, then you are a fool.

    They should split the pie, with no billion dollar exemptions or any other nonsense. Split it right down the middle.

    Maybe one of you capitalist genius guys can recall for me the last time an owner lost his team because his knee was gone? Or maybe they keep making billions for years and years, and the players have a short window. Think, you sycophants. Think.

  45. thegreenviking says: Jun 2, 2011 4:51 PM

    Don’t get your hopes up folks. We’ve been down this path numerous times.

  46. easyeddie says: Jun 2, 2011 4:52 PM

    dccowboy says:
    Jun 2, 2011 4:31 PM
    So wait. Did he just say, “We’re canceling the mediation talks next week because we’re already in mediation talks?”

    ————————————–

    They’re not canceling the mediation talks next week because we’re already in mediation talks. They’re moving from mediation to “settlement talks” and that is a good thing. The two sides entered into settlement talks in 1993 which resulted in the CBA that presided over the league until last March.

  47. realfann says: Jun 2, 2011 4:52 PM

    Every marketing class taught in school today includes a section on viral marketing i.e influencing opinion through the internet via social sites such as blogs, youtube, facebook.

    People are employed to post messages, videos, comments, pictures in support of marketing campaigns.

    This is no secret.

    The NFL and the owners are doing it and the results can be seen on a handful of high profile blogs.

    This is one of them.

  48. upperdecker19 says: Jun 2, 2011 4:52 PM

    Why does it take a third party to initiate these meetings? Why isn’t Goodell initiating these negotiations IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GAME? Instead of randomly meeting with any fans or talk shows that will let you relentlessly pummel them with your spin. Regardless of the outcome of all of this, the damage has been done. Goodell is as image conscious as anyone. He’ll be booed excessively anywhere he appears for the rest of his life. Ask Bud Selig how that works, if you need a referrence.

  49. ralphshere says: Jun 2, 2011 4:53 PM

    kc4life7 sez: “You really think the owners care about comments on a website like PFT enough to hire people to go on there and comment? Get real. They have more important things to worry about. Also, most of them have several other companies/investments they deal with on a daily basis.”

    Absolutely!

    They hire cheerleaders for games and moderators for their message boards.

    They are playing a game of public sentiment, as ultimately that drives the bottom line.

    Paid spinners & bashers now are a frequent force spouting to many public forums, not just here.

  50. willycents says: Jun 2, 2011 4:56 PM

    @ jakek2..aka Kellen Winslow the second.

    on your first point, I have seen no posts saying how great the owners initial offer was. Only players like yourself condemning it as “the worst offer in the history of sport.”

    On your second point, you guys have consistently made one offer, maintain the staus quo. Perhaps that offer is just as rediculous to the owners as you guys think the owners offers were.

    As to your comparison to your mustang, If you set your price at $100,000,000, am I wrong to offer you $1?
    that is where I see the stalemate at at the moment, just like your car sale idea.

  51. jaltreality says: Jun 2, 2011 4:58 PM

    By the looks of the comments on this page, looks like the owners have won the PR battle, at least. The war will likely follow.

  52. realfann says: Jun 2, 2011 5:02 PM

    Facts:

    The owners have never offered a complete proposal that includes disposition of all revenue. They admit this.

    The owners have never made an offer in any detail. All they have presented are single pages with bullet highlights.

    The players standing proposal is an extension to the CBA that recently expired. It is up to the owners to suggest changes.

    The original owner offer cut the players share of revenue by at least 5 to 10 billion dollars over the lifetime of the deal.

    This indeed is the worst offer every made in the history of labor negotiations. DeMaurice Smith would have been derelict in his duty not to dismiss it out of hand.

    The owners have not made that offer again.

    An impartial observer would easily conclude that the owners are not yet negotiating in good faith.

    They are stalling until games are cancelled and player gamechecks are missed in order to coerce the players into taking a bad deal.

    That is directly against the interests of the fans.

    The owners should not be allowed to cancel games using an anti-trust exception that was granted to them in order to provide us with football.

    That’s not right. Not legal. Not smart.

  53. wannabeqb says: Jun 2, 2011 5:03 PM

    I really would like a breakdown of the offers the owners have given. I’m fed up of being told by pro-owner commenters that they were “fair” in such a vague way, that’s the same as when Smith says it was the worst deal ever. What concessions did they offer? Quicker FA? no more restricted FA/franchise/transition tags?

    All I know for a fact is that the NFLPA (before decertifying) received offers and felt that they were no different than had been offered previously, therefore they decided negotiating as a union was a waste of everyone’s time (they could be right or wrong about this, we’ll never know) and went to court. If I had been in their shoes and received the same, in their opinion, “unfair” offer time and time again I probably would have done the same.

    Quick note, if you give me a thumbs down does that mean you think I’m wrong for wanting to actually be informed on the issue?

  54. Deb says: Jun 2, 2011 5:05 PM

    @rooneyruleblues …

    Mike has been extremely forthcoming about what’s in his best interest in terms of PFT’s revenues. He has never denied that it’s better for him if the lockout is lifted. But if you were paying attention to the site’s content, you’d see that he gets a great deal of his information from league sources rather than just players and agents. That bit of snarkiness was inaccurate and unnecessary. I can get as annoyed at the site as anyone else, but try to be annoyed for a logical reason.

    But why should I expect logic from a guy with that user name. The owners set up a committee to come up with that rule and passed it unanimously. It doesn’t require them to hire anyone they don’t want to hire. Why should you be soooo upset that they jointly decided to give minority candidates a shot at an interview? Good grief.

  55. nfl25 says: Jun 2, 2011 5:07 PM

    jakek2 says:
    Jun 2, 2011 4:38 PM
    The pro-owner comments are beyond comical. The art of negotiation is so over these people’s heads it’s a joke. The extent of their negotiating experience is haggling over a blender at a garage sale.

    1) Quit commenting on how great the owners’ offer(s) are. You have no idea.

    2) Any shrewd negotiator will not propose a counteroffer to “offer(s)” that are ridiculous. The fact that De hasn’t counteroffered can only lead us to the conclusion that the owners’ offer(s) are, in fact, ridiculous. Sort of like you offering me to buy my cherry 66 Mustang for $1. I won’t waste my breath giving you a counter.

    Now going ahead and prove my point by thumbs downing the only truthful comment in this thread.

    ////////////////////////////////////////

    so what was the offer that was made? you sound like you know what it was. i havent heard anyone saythe owners made a great offer, but i dont read every post. all i hear is the players havent counteroffered. ur the one that sounds like he is acting like they know something they dont

    and ralph,
    teh reason most of us know that is because the players dont even know what was offered on the last proposal.

    and do you really think if the players made and offer to the owners, that we would have heard, “the big bad owners turned down our offer, we just wanna play fball and the onwers are stopping us.”

    trust me the players did not make a counter offer

  56. 8drinkminimum says: Jun 2, 2011 5:09 PM

    @duanethomas and all the other names you use to post on this site.

    Don’t you get it?

    I will only speak for myself, a 32 year season ticket holder.

    These court actions go after the very fabric of what keeps this league succesful. If they were to win the anti trust then bye bye draft just for starters. That to me is unacceptable.

    Players come and go. As Nick Nolte said to Mac davis in North Dallas Forty. “The owners are the team, the players just the equipment”.

    I need the owners to be profitable and sustainable because I love football and I don’t want to see chaos which is what happens if this stays in the courts to the bitter end.

  57. realfann says: Jun 2, 2011 5:11 PM

    There’s a type of person that indulges in games when pretending to buy things. They’re called “time wasters”.

    They make ridiculously bad offers, incomplete offers, indulge in long meaningless negotiations by keeping changing the terms & conditions

    Anyone in the retail business has come across them. They just want to waste time and not make a deal.

    In these player/owner negotiations. The owner committee and Roger Goodell are time-wasters.

    They spend a lot of time and effort explaining to the world and leaking to their pals in the media how busy they are “negotiating”.

    If they really were, they wouldn’t need to spend so much effort telling us. We’d be seeing the results.

  58. hooky40 says: Jun 2, 2011 5:11 PM

    Blarch,

    “This game exists because of the means of the owners and the TALENT of the players. They are equal partners. If you think the owners could create a league without paying for the best athletes in the world, then you are a fool.”

    They are not equal partners, in any way, shape, or form. Any suggestion that they are would be ignorant. Owners are owners and players are employees, plain and simple. “Partners” suggests that the players own something, which they do not. They are contracted employees who are paid to perform their services. That would be like saying the guy who flips burgers or salts the fries is a “partner” to the owner of a burger joint (unionized or not).
    The “partnership” is not a true partnership, it is only framed that way by the NFLPA* for public perception to help win the PR battle (which isn’t working, obviously).

    It is becoming easy to see which of the commenters on here are management/entrepreneur material and those who are not.

  59. tdk24 says: Jun 2, 2011 5:12 PM

    Sounds like they expect a deal to get done before that cancelled meeting next week. FOOTBALL!!!!!!

  60. nfl25 says: Jun 2, 2011 5:12 PM

    blarch

    its obvious your love for the players has clouded ur judgemnt. and also that you have a problem withtheowners making unthinkable amounts of money. the owners are supposed to make that much money, they own the thing. the players are the workers that get replaced every few years.

    i for one dont hate the players. i couldnt watch fball if i did. but i back the owners cuz i think they deserve the right to opt out of the deal and redo a new deal. just as i would think the players have the right. i also know that the players want as much $$ in the next few years, while the owners HAVE to care about the long term nfl

  61. thetooloftools says: Jun 2, 2011 5:25 PM

    Is he related to the judge in the O.J. Simpson trial? I mean they all look… never mind.

  62. heyguru1969 says: Jun 2, 2011 5:26 PM

    That picture of the Judge has obviously been photo-shopped. No 60-year-old-plus Jurist has a gavel that erect.

  63. aigraiders says: Jun 2, 2011 5:29 PM

    If my job required me to smash my knees and brains, then I’d ask for as much as I can too.

    If my last contract enabled my company to make record sales, then I sure as hell will not take a paycut either.

  64. vahawker says: Jun 2, 2011 5:29 PM

    Jake:
    1) Quit commenting on how great the owners’ offer(s) are. You have no idea.

    2) Any shrewd negotiator will not propose a counteroffer to “offer(s)” that are ridiculous. The fact that De hasn’t counteroffered can only lead us to the conclusion that the owners’ offer(s) are, in fact, ridiculous
    ***********************************

    1)Quit commenting on BAD the owner’s offer(s) were. You have no idea(but at least you admit they made more than one offer)

    2)BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA. Youe seriously would take the word of that self serving Weasel as truth!?!?!?

    Blarch:
    Why does this blog have such a mindless bunch of pro owner dimwits? I’m on many football forums and this comment section skews pro owner more than any of them.

    You are all misguided in your hate of the players.
    *************************************

    Unlike you, many of us(on both sides) can seperate DeMoron and the NFLPA* from “the players”. We can also seperate they “player’s” actions from their play on the field. Because I’m a fan of a player, doesn’t mean I have to support them when I think they are wrong. Which I do becaue they selected DeMoron, made no offers, decertified and ran to court.

    Why do the “pro player” shills always have to resort to personal attacks? Can’t DISCUSS the points? oh wait…isn’t that what DeMoron and the “players” are doing too?

    tommyf15 says:
    Jun 2, 2011 4:34 PM
    Why do I have the feeling that the same folks screaming over the players not making an offer would be screaming over whatever the players asked for?
    ***************************************

    So you finally admit the players have yet to make known what they want? Is that not a direct result of them not making any offers of their own?

  65. billybats says: Jun 2, 2011 5:35 PM

    ralphshere says: “At this point billybats, you have no knowledge of whom has responded to what.

    Are there two “bona fide” offers; or are there two rediculous [sic] insults?

    Have the players submitted a proposal?

    At this juncture, you simply do not know.

    Acting as if you do, is rather batty- billy.”

    Ralphshere, it’s a fact that the Union decertified and ran to court rather than counter the last offer. Pretending that the NFLPA* is secretly behaving like grown-ups and making secret counter-offers when the head of the NFLPA* is blasting the last offer as the “worst deal in the history of sports” is a joke. Just like all you pro-union types are.

    Now go home and get your freaking shinebox.

  66. skinsrock says: Jun 2, 2011 5:41 PM

    There will be a deal by 7/1/11… BOOK IT!

  67. aigraiders says: Jun 2, 2011 5:45 PM

    hooky40 says: Jun 2, 2011 5:11 PM

    …It is becoming easy to see which of the commenters on here are management/entrepreneur material and those who are not.
    ———————-

    You’re such a good business person that you’d be willing to take a paycut and work 2 more days for less money than your last contract, even though that last contract got your company record profits and revenue? SMH

  68. aigraiders says: Jun 2, 2011 5:59 PM

    vahawker says: Jun 2, 2011 5:29 PM

    Is that not a direct result of them not making any offers of their own?
    ———————-
    Why should the players make any offer. All they have asked for is the status quo. Take the rookie money and add it to the vets. The last contract is doing well for the league is it not? I doubt you would consider any offer less than what you are currently getting if you were instrumental in getting your company record sales.

    Imagine if Apple decided to ask their Iphone engineers to take a paycut for the success of that product? Doesnt make any sense does it?

  69. jakek2 says: Jun 2, 2011 6:03 PM

    willycents, nfl25, vahawker:

    Do any of you read two words of what I write or do you just see “jakek2″ and immediately re-write the same drivel all of the other pro-owner shills write? Seriously?

    PLEASE READ CLOSELY! Arguing with you invalids is becoming tiresome.

    1) The owners offer(s) (offer(s) meaning 1, 2, 100, who cares) were NOT worth the breath of a counter. Shrewd negotiators know this. Since De didn’t waste a breath countering, reasonable minds MUST conclude that the offers were NOT worth a counter. Still with me???? Comprende??
    – - aside….Willycents….If I offered the car for $100,000,000, I wouldn’t expect you to respond. If you did respond $1, then again, its back to me and I wouldn’t respond. Get it? See how this works or is this too much for your pea brain?

    2) Unlike you dolts, I am not pretending to know what is going on during these meetings.

    3) If the owners want their offer(s) taken seriously and they are forthright about losing money, please, please, please, please tell me why they won’t show the books?? What’s the problem? If the books substantiate what they’ve been offering, then you are right in slamming De for not countering. Until then, sorry. I’m not buying you’re position. Go back to posting (“DeMoron sucks ummmm cuz he has old hats, yeah, thatz it!”)

  70. duanethomas says: Jun 2, 2011 6:08 PM

    All you pro-owner shills can be assured of this fact.

    No legitimate fair offer…No football in 2011.

    Everybody talks about how the players can afford to miss checks.

    Why did the owners hire scabs last time (87) because they couldn’t miss the revenue.

    The players are going to bloody and humble the owners.

    No football in 2011. Mark my words.

    The pro-owner shills will lose their mind. Watch.

  71. woodsidegil says: Jun 2, 2011 6:12 PM

    Response to Blarch…

    I think you’re off target to suggest that the owners and players “split it down the middle”.
    As much as we love professional football it’s not a game, it’s a business. True, the owners risk their money and the players risk their health, but I don’t recall reading any articles about anyone putting a gun to the head of the players and forcing them into this career. They voluntarily choose it, hence their risk.

    Having said that, I believe the owners have a responsibility to fairly compensate the players because that’s what brings in the huge $$$$$. Unless you are privy to operational costs and net profits to football franchises that no one else has I don’t know how you arrived at your suggestion of a 50/50 split.

  72. jlporcher says: Jun 2, 2011 6:22 PM

    Im so sick of this S**T, LETS JUST END IT ALREADY!! Times wasting away. They keep this up and say there is an actual season. Its going to look more like S**T ball instead of football because more than 80% of the league is so far behind…..

  73. jakek2 says: Jun 2, 2011 6:34 PM

    someone (even pro-owner dolts) correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the players offer a 50/50 split with the same 1B taken off the top???

    However, the owners haven’t budged off of 40/60 in their favor with 2B taken off the top?

    Is that where things were left?

  74. tommyf15 says: Jun 2, 2011 6:34 PM

    vahawker says:
    So you finally admit the players have yet to make known what they want?

    The players have made it clear what they want- no unionization of the players, no unionization of the owners, and no CBA. They want the same free-market system the rest of America enjoys.

    People do a knee-jerk “THAT WILL RUIN THE GAME!!” reaction to that, but don’t get ahead of yourselves just yet. There’s no sense in trying to predict what will happen if that comes to pass.

  75. tommyf15 says: Jun 2, 2011 6:41 PM

    duanethomas says:
    All you pro-owner shills can be assured of this fact.

    No legitimate fair offer…No football in 2011.

    Actually if the court ends the lockout, there will be football in 2011, with or without an offer. And that would create an incredible minefield for the owners, with the anti-trust case looming.

    Why did the owners hire scabs last time (87) because they couldn’t miss the revenue.

    They could hire the scabs because it was a strike and not a lockout.

    They DID hire the scabs because it would and did break the union, creating a very favorable climate for the owners that has now lasted for 24 years.By cancelling the latest CBA, the owners risk giving it all back, and more.

  76. dsnuts79 says: Jun 2, 2011 6:46 PM

    why do some people have to “quote” the story, as if we didn’t read it for ourselves? it’s kind of annoying, guys…

  77. hooky40 says: Jun 2, 2011 6:48 PM

    Aigraiders:
    “You’re such a good business person that you’d be willing to take a paycut and work 2 more days for less money than your last contract, even though that last contract got your company record profits and revenue? SMH”

    I’m not surprised that you don’t get it…

    No player is being asked to take a personal paycut, actually the salary cap will continue to go up and so will player salaries. They may not make the same % increase year over year, but in no way will they make less $ year over year. Adding 2 games may or may not happen, we don’t know what the exact details of the 2 offers were….and yes, I am confident enough in my business life that I could work 2 more days without suing my boss for a raise (it wouldn’t make any sense to sue myself). You should realize that these points are all negotiable and do not require a judge or court room to settle them…

  78. narutofan10 says: Jun 2, 2011 6:58 PM

    i am not gonna sit here and knock either side i think this is a great development it shows a little that things are getting more serious and that they don’t need a scheduled court order to talk i feel this will end fairly soon

  79. aigraiders says: Jun 2, 2011 6:59 PM

    Hooky,

    You’re trying to twist the logic here. Try deciphering this up.

    1. If the owner is required to spend a certain number amount of money and now they say let’s reduce that % number. Say they were required to spend 50% on salary and now owners say let’s take it down to 40%. You telling me that’s not a paycut in the grand scheme of thing? if they are required to spend less money then they were before than how is that not a paycut?

    2. Currently the starters truly play only 3 qtrs in the 3rd game of the preseason. On top of that their avg career is 3.5 years. Now the owners say let’s play 18 games. So is it not asking the players to play 2 more extra games and shorten their career even more?

    3. Did the last contract help the owners make record profits? Yes or No.

    You’re right. I dont get it. I dont get your stupid logic. You’d flunk business 101 in a heart beat and I doubt you ever owned any company or ran any business. I have owned 3 in my career.

  80. narutofan10 says: Jun 2, 2011 7:00 PM

    why do some people have to “quote” the story, as if we didn’t read it for ourselves? it’s kind of annoying, guys…
    —————————————
    it is a basic writing method you place the quote first and explain your reasoning it is mostly to look more professional

  81. tommyf15 says: Jun 2, 2011 7:10 PM

    hooky40 says:
    No player is being asked to take a personal paycut, actually the salary cap will continue to go up and so will player salaries. They may not make the same % increase year over year, but in no way will they make less $ year over year. Adding 2 games may or may not happen, we don’t know what the exact details of the 2 offers were….and yes, I am confident enough in my business life that I could work 2 more days without suing my boss for a raise

    1. The players as a group are being asked to take less money.

    2. Saying that the players are being asked to work “two more days” is the most shamelessly disingenuous thing I’ve read on a message board full of them. Who are you trying to fool?

    3. The players aren’t suing for a raise, they’re suing to get the owners to stop acting as a union.

  82. monk316 says: Jun 2, 2011 7:11 PM

    If everyone thinks this site is so one sided and biased, why not just get your news else where? Just a suggestion.

    I’m hoping this is all good news. Both parties have done some very selfish things in this process in order to gain leverage. It’s time to make things right and negotiate in good faith to make a deal.

  83. ralphshere says: Jun 2, 2011 7:12 PM

    ralphshere says: “At this point billybats, you have no knowledge of whom has responded to what.

    Are there two “bona fide” offers; or are there two rediculous [sic] insults?

    Have the players submitted a proposal?

    At this juncture, you simply do not know.

    Acting as if you do, is rather batty- billy.”

    billybats says: “Ralphshere, it’s a fact that the Union decertified and ran to court rather than counter the last offer. Pretending that the NFLPA* is secretly behaving like grown-ups and making secret counter-offers when the head of the NFLPA* is blasting the last offer as the “worst deal in the history of sports” is a joke. Just like all you pro-union types are.

    Now go home and get your freaking shinebox.”

    Well: “billybats” you make a point- you are unable to speak of the positives of this article above. Instead, you castigate me for doings so.

    Then come a childish attempt at an insult…I mean he whom speaks of shineboxes reveals something about himself.

    Paid bashers/spinners shills, degenerate commentary and inevitably try personal attack.

    With such a positive possibility written about in the article above, how is it that inflammatory swarms endorsing one another, attempting to bash their “opponents” take no moment to explore the positive merits written of?

    The owners have lost control of their robots…robots that attack the very fans the owners wish to buy tickets.

    Shinebox huh? Your credibility speaks for itself.

    You don’t really exist as a fan, just an automaton doing what it was programed to do.

    Sad commentary on the owners.

  84. tommyf15 says: Jun 2, 2011 7:22 PM

    jakek2 says:
    willycents, nfl25, vahawker:

    Do any of you read two words of what I write or do you just see “jakek2″ and immediately re-write the same drivel all of the other pro-owner shills write? Seriously?

    PLEASE READ CLOSELY! Arguing with you invalids is becoming tiresome.

    1) The owners offer(s) (offer(s) meaning 1, 2, 100, who cares) were NOT worth the breath of a counter. Shrewd negotiators know this. Since De didn’t waste a breath countering, reasonable minds MUST conclude that the offers were NOT worth a counter. Still with me???? Comprende??
    – – aside….Willycents….If I offered the car for $100,000,000, I wouldn’t expect you to respond. If you did respond $1, then again, its back to me and I wouldn’t respond. Get it? See how this works or is this too much for your pea brain?

    Jake, you and I pretty much on the same side here, but there’s another possible reason the players didn’t make an offer. It’s the same reason the players won’t negotiate, or at least have been reluctant to do so.

    If the players are serious about their anti-trust suit and stance, they have to be consistent. They can’t hand over on a silver platter the argument that they were happy to be a union when they were asking for 65% (or whatever), and turned to their pro-market / anti-trust stance when they couldn’t get it.

  85. phelbin says: Jun 2, 2011 7:24 PM

    @jakek2, your non-response scenario doesn’t really make sense. If I were to offer you $1 for your car, you wouldn’t really ignore me. You’d say something like, “sorry man, I’m looking to get $15k for it.” At that point, it would be up to me to meet your offer or abandon negotiations. But even then I wouldn’t just ignore you, I’d make it clear that I wasn’t going to try to meet your offer.

    What separates this situation is that the two parties will eventually work together. Neither party can reject the other outright and start a new league. Therefore, a counter is expected at some point. But the NFLPA* has simply ignored the various proposals, because their strategy from the beginning has been to pursue leverage through litigation. And this is where your car analogy falls apart. If I thought I could get a judge to force you to sell me the car for $1, why wouldn’t I try? And that is the root cause of the lockout.

  86. duanethomas says: Jun 2, 2011 7:32 PM

    All you pro-owners/nfl team employees/nfl office employees, here’s a suggestion.

    If the lockout is upheld as expected, prepare yourself for NO football in 2011.

    I suggest with your pay cuts and furloughs you guys go out and get second jobs.

    It’s going to drive you insane to see the players stick together and sacrifice a season.

    Better tell your owners to make a legitimate offer or you will suffer.

  87. tommyf15 says: Jun 2, 2011 7:41 PM

    duanethomas says:
    If the lockout is upheld as expected, prepare yourself for NO football in 2011.

    I suggest with your pay cuts and furloughs you guys go out and get second jobs.

    It’s going to drive you insane to see the players stick together and sacrifice a season.

    Duane, many posters here see both of us as “pro-player”. I see myself as a realist, and someone that is pro-free market.

    As a realist, I have to tell you that I doubt the players would be willing to lose an entire season.

    History shows us that a lockout is a brutally effective weapon, and if the courts don’t lift the lockout I expect the players to accept the owner’s best offer and wait until 2012, when the Brady, Manning, Brees, et al anti-trust suit is heard.

  88. phelbin says: Jun 2, 2011 7:51 PM

    Come on guys, the whole pro-owner-therefore-employee line is a little played out. Don’t you think? And it’s a straw man fallacy to say that anyone who supports the league must be employed by the owners, therefore their points are invalid.

    Have you never met someone with a different point of view? And have you never discovered later that you had been on the wrong side of an argument? I sure have. Look, I disagree with those of you who support DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA, but I’d never suggest that you’re all idiots who must be teamsters, nor would I use that as the basis for refuting your points.

  89. billybats says: Jun 2, 2011 8:10 PM

    ralphshere says: “Well: “billybats” you make a point- you are unable to speak of the positives of this article above. Instead, you castigate me for doings [sic] so.

    Then come [sic] a childish attempt at an insult…I mean he whom [sic] speaks of shineboxes reveals something about himself.

    Paid bashers/spinners shills, degenerate commentary and inevitably try [sic] personal attack.

    With such a positive possibility written about in the article above, how is it that inflammatory swarms endorsing one another, attempting to bash their “opponents” take no moment to explore the positive merits written of?
    The owners have lost control of their robots…robots that attack the very fans the owners wish to buy tickets.
    Shinebox huh? Your credibility speaks for itself.
    You don’t really exist as a fan, just an automaton doing what it was programed to do.
    Sad commentary on the owners.”

    ****
    Seriously, Ralphshere, you are way out of your league. Try taking a couple of English grammar courses before attempting to debate your betters. I’m trying to attribute some cogent argument to your screed and failing utterly. Next time, think before you write, if you can.

    As Mark Twain once said: “It is better to remain silent and appear ignorant, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” Words to live by, “Ralphshere.”

  90. jakek2 says: Jun 2, 2011 8:13 PM

    phelbin -

    1) Telling you that I’m “looking to get 15K for it” after you just offered me $1 would be me playing my cards before I had to. By saying $15K, you can now gauge what I’d take where I couldn’t gauge what you’d really pay. A shrewd negotiator would laugh at the offer and not respond so as to hold that ultra-valuable card. That’s why I tried to draw the comparison for the close-eyed, large forehead crew on this site (not that you’re one of them).

    2) As for your filing suit to get the judge to force me to sell the car for $1, you might have inadvertently proved my point. For the sake of our debate, the players filed suit to AVOID selling the car for $1. If the best deal on the table was $1 for the car, the players were right to file because whichever way the court ruled would be better than that $1 offer. I say this prefacing that I might be missing your analogy here.

  91. mistrezzrachael says: Jun 2, 2011 8:15 PM

    duane thomas..has met his match out here…DEB

    One is strung out on anything he gets his hands on, while DEB dumb as a bag of rocks.

    Go & find god like Ben and his ‘pure’ girlfriend..so nice they’ve saved themselves for the big night.

    Now back to football…The players turned down an incredible offer from owners..better than any of us [ except duh DEB] thought…Only major issue the should have negociated was $$$ splits.

    They won’t get that offer now…no chance.

  92. tommyf15 says: Jun 2, 2011 8:47 PM

    mistrezzrachael says:
    The players turned down an incredible offer from owners

    An INCREDIBLE offer? Really?

    You’re quite the newsbreaker. Tell us all about this INCREDIBLE offer that you know about, the one that is different than the one being reported by ESPN and all of the major sports sites.

  93. derek2957 says: Jun 2, 2011 9:09 PM

    Rule#1 of business negotiating: Never negotiate against yourself. As a business owner if I make a business related offer and receive no counter offer or acceptance, I assume the other party isn’t interested in doing business. If the players want to get a deal done it doesn’t matter what offer the owners made there is nothing stopping them from making their offer. If the owners offered the players 25% of the total revenue ( a totally unrealistic made up number) and the players want 80% (another totally unrealistic made up number) what is to stop the players from counter offering for 80%. The fact that no offer has been made in return is just a sign that the players don’t want to negotiate.
    I’m not sure if this is accurate but I seem to remember hearing that if the lockout drags on throughout the seasons the lawyers for both sides would make a combined 72 million dollars. I know if I had a job where if i finished today I got 5 dollars but if I finished in 10 months I got 200, and there was no negative impact on me personally I’d take as long as possible to finish that job. The fact remains that there is only one reasonable outcome for the players, the owners have other business investments and ventures. Once the game checks stop, it’s only a matter of time before the players cave. Football offers them a far better chance to make their millions than any of the jobs most of them could get with their college degrees. If I were a player I would be furious that this has dragged on as long as it has. As it’s been mentioned football careers are short and every game check missed is just a day the current players are getting older and there is a new crop of younger cheaper talent coming up. Both sides have acted terrible during this, but the fact of the matter that the longer this lasts, the more the balance of power swings towards the owners, with each passing day, the deal the players can get is going to be worse and worse. For the sake of the players I’ve spent most of my adult life watching, both sides need to get a deal done, and to include something so that both the current AND former players can get the medical treatment and payments they need so that we don’t wind up with another Johnny Unitas. Who toward the end of his life couldn’t even sign autographs with his throwing hand because he couldn’t hold a pen in it. Or another Mike Webster living on the streets. I don’t care if it’s the owners or the players who have to take less but someone needs to take care of this issue because it looks bad for the league, and the players.

  94. aigraiders says: Jun 2, 2011 9:28 PM

    @tommyf15

    Please forgive my man Hooky. He is clearly a paid troll by the owners to try and swing public opinions.

    1. No idiot ever volunteers to work “2 extra days” for free when he knows the company is making record profits.

    2. I wish I had employees and customers like Hooky. I wouldnt have to work so hard. Dude considers taking a % of the money from the salary pool is not a pay cut. It’s like taking $100k from the $500k salary pool and say hey it’s not a paycut.

    3. Dude forgets that it is written in the last CBA that the players have the right to decertify the union. The player has every right to get the most for their skillsets just like the rest of us in the real world.

  95. aigraiders says: Jun 2, 2011 9:32 PM

    @Derek,

    The players are happy with the last contract. It allowed for the league and owners to make record profits. Now they say they want the same 50/50 split. That’s their offer.

    The owners want a lower split. Why should the players take a lower cut when they just helped the owners make record profits and the most powerful sports in America?

  96. ralphshere says: Jun 2, 2011 9:34 PM

    billybats you serve as [sic] spell checker on my post…laughable. Good boy billy.

    And, still not a word about the developments described in the article.

    Then that isn’t what you’re paid to do.

    Attempts at insult and spin, that’s your forte`.

    Time for another laugh, and off to sleep, hopeful something good comes of both sides sitting down.

  97. aigraiders says: Jun 2, 2011 9:42 PM

    The owners came to the negotiating table and made an offer where they want more than they got the last time. Now all the owner trolls on here are asking the players to counter…Counter with what? Counter to accept making less than they got last time? Why should they when the league is making record profits?

    SMH.

  98. realfann says: Jun 2, 2011 9:50 PM

    “The players aren’t suing for a raise, they’re suing to get the owners to stop acting as a union”

    Brilliant!

    and not only that, the owners want the players to be forced to join a union against their will.

    So much for owners hating unions.

    They want EVERYBODY to be in one.

  99. Deb says: Jun 2, 2011 10:00 PM

    @mistrezzrachael …

    Your onging preoccupation with me is amusing. And given the tone and content of your posts, somehow I’m not surprised you fail to grasp any intelligence in my comments.

  100. radrntn says: Jun 2, 2011 10:15 PM

    that picture is classic…who is that dude….he looks more like a lee.

    lets face it the owners gave the players their best offer on the final day, hours before the lockout. Now the players are begging for that deal

  101. vahawker says: Jun 2, 2011 10:26 PM

    Kind of tired of the “career is 3.5 years” straw man. A scrub player is picked up for a a few games due to injuries-his “1 year is averaged in”, 7 th rounder makes the ST on a bad team and is dumped the next year-or replaced by some one who is subsequently dumped- that’s two more 1 “year ” careers added in to bring the average down. Roughly the bottom half of most rosters have high turn over every few years because they harbor marginal players who can get cut after a year or two or three and replaced with the next group of marginal players who will get cut in a year or two or three. All these one, two , 3 year “careers” get added in to bring down the average. To hear most people who spout this drivel you would think all these players are getting career ending injuries after 3.5 years. Fact is, most just aren’t good enough to stick around and thus have short “careers”.

    If,as some believe, every “pro-owner” poster is an NFL employee, it only follows that every “pro-player” poster is an NFL player.

  102. vahawker says: Jun 2, 2011 10:34 PM

    +1000000 for Deb(did I just type that?) Sure sign of the end of the world. Don’t agree with you often, but no denying your intelligence.

  103. FinFan68 says: Jun 2, 2011 11:55 PM

    The players are entitled to fair compensation for the services they provide, not a “fair share of the profits”. I believe the players’ compensation should rise as the business grows but not necessarily as quickly as it has been. Getting a 5% raise instead of a 10% raise is not a pay cut. I think the owners’ latest published proposal (from what both sides have said about it) was more than a fair starting point for negotiations on a new deal and included several concessions on the part of the owners. This whole thing is a huge mess but the league has kept steady with what they want while the players leadership has made several contradictory and some blatantly false arguments in an effort to ride the fence on the decertification deal. It was necessary but they don’t want to attack the competitive balance the game enjoys. The litigation strategy is an all or nothing deal once the decert happened. The players would be wise to admit their mistake and replace Smith before the damage is permanent.

    Hopefully, these “secret” talks lead to a deal that both sides can live with.

  104. southmo says: Jun 3, 2011 12:06 AM

    Given the level of wages the owners pay their employees, if I WAS being paid to comment on blogs for them, they would never have to worry about locking me out.

  105. southmo says: Jun 3, 2011 12:11 AM

    realfann, not everyone likes the idea of an NFL with no set rules for scheduling, free agency, drafts, and all the other competitive balance things.

    And sure, they can sue, and you can support it for ideological reasons, but the rest of us kind of enjoyed the NFL of the past 12 years.

    Despite your spin, that is exactly where your positions logically take you -barring a Supreme Court ruling that changes everything.

  106. duanethomas says: Jun 3, 2011 1:10 AM

    @mistrezzracheal. I’m on drugs and Deb is dumb.

    With spell check being a feature on mainline computers since the late 70′s, you still manage to mangle “negotiated”

    You spell it like You pronounce it with a “c” in it.

    Don’t stalk me like you do Deb.

    Push away from the table and hit the treadmill.

  107. eagleswin says: Jun 3, 2011 10:18 AM

    aigraiders says:Jun 2, 2011 9:28 PM

    @tommyf15

    Please forgive my man Hooky. He is clearly a paid troll by the owners to try and swing public opinions.

    1. No idiot ever volunteers to work “2 extra days” for free when he knows the company is making record profits.

    2. I wish I had employees and customers like Hooky. I wouldnt have to work so hard. Dude considers taking a % of the money from the salary pool is not a pay cut. It’s like taking $100k from the $500k salary pool and say hey it’s not a paycut.

    3. Dude forgets that it is written in the last CBA that the players have the right to decertify the union. The player has every right to get the most for their skillsets just like the rest of us in the real world.

    ————————

    1a. 2 extra games = increased revenue = higher salary cap = more money for players on future contracts. Regardless, the owners tabled the 18 games issue for now so it’s a nonissue.

    1b. The players turned down auditted financials for 5 years given to a mutually acceptable third party for verification. The players turned it down for PR reasons. It sounds like it worked. Soundbytes over substance.

    2. Your analagy is woefully inaccurate. A more accurate way to explain it (using your $) is if the 2011 salary pool is $500k, the owners want the 2012 pool to be $525k instead of $550k. Do you understand now how the players aren’t taking a paycut?

    3. The players had the right to decertify 6 months after the expiration of the CBA. Has it been 6 months? No. That is the basis of the owners argument. If the players wait 6 months it might’ve cost them money, that’s why they jumped the gun on decertification.

  108. Deb says: Jun 3, 2011 12:12 PM

    @vahawker …

    I gave one of your comments a big thumbs up not long ago, too. Good thing the May D-Day has come and gone or I’d be getting worried ;)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!