Thread: Bears eager to start molding team

Originally Posted by dabears54

how did the owner's not bargain in "good faith"?? they made the proposal's.. and the union din't counter and walked away.. how is THAT bargaining in good faith by the union? and how was the offer to reduce their demands by 600 million not in good faith? how was increasing the vet pension 200% not in good faith?..How exactly did the league not bargain in good faith? i'm not getting that at all soul- hell they even wrote a letter to the playes explaining their last offer, how is that not in good faith?

We both know that he was way out of line doing that. In no way is that "good faith". It's more the equivalent of "back door bargaining" when you go around those who've been elected to represent you, try to break solidarity and create a disturbance within the ranks. That didn't work but is was still one of the more outrageous things the Gooddell did. If he took it on himself to do it it was stupid and useless and if he did on the advice of the owners he was poorly advised. It drove the stake even deeper and pushed the players even further away from the negotiating table.

The union did offer counter proposals to everyone of the owners proposals but the last one which rumor had it was worse than the one before it. Now it's been said that they've done this again so it's pretty easy to believe that the first rumor is true. That's not what I call good faith bargaining and I would be insulted if they had done that with me were I involved in these negotiations. That's not good faith bargaining, it's coersive bargaining.

From strictly a dollars and cents the owners are now asking for an additional $300 mil plus off the top of the revenue pile to start with plus a "rollback" in the cap to bring things more in line with current fiscal reality. But that's still asking the players to "give back" between $325 to $350 mil of money they see belonging to them via previously bargained for in 2006 on the owners say so alone. They won't provide the documentation that's been asked of them for over 2 years and that is not good faith bargaining.

Doesn't it seem funny to anyone that while refusing to produce the requested financial data that the owners have progressively lowered their "give ups" as if to say what's it gonna take to get you to agree without dropping our shorts on the financials? If they guard that info this closely just what is in their that they don't want anyone to see? You really have to wonder because they've yet to come of that refusal that they gave all the way back in March. The crux of it plain and simple is that the owners claim they need a bigger piece of the $9 bil "Revenue Pie" to remain on solid ground financially. So they ask the players to give up $300 mil plus of their share of the pile but when asked to prove it they clam up tighter than an oyster around a pearl.

So to me, no, that isn't what I'd call "good faith" bargaining when the central issue that led to this mess was a chip they won't put on the table. A gross compilation won't due. Each team must be audited separately and any and all unusual or mischaracterized expenses need to be footnoted. Then the data from all 32 teams can be compiled and presented along with those footnotes. The players have a right to know that these rising expenses are legit before they agree to any reduction in what they already have. Furthermore an agreement of how to share in future revenues and/or rising revenues also needs to be made.

Originally Posted by dabears54

when the costs have been raising 15-20%( mostly medical and transportation) each year since the 2006 CBA WHERE THE PLAYERS DID NOT HAVE ANY INCREASE IN COSTS FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS and fixed in 2006.. OF COURSE NOW going to be asked to give some of that back! that is common sense!.. you know better Soul

Hope I'm not misunderstanding you but you can't say that the players cost of living, no matter how hedonistic that lifestyle might be, hasn't gone up. They have just like the rest of us. I'm just stating what the players and I would expect to have, documented info on rising costs to review in offering a counter proposal. Anyone should want that over an amount as large as they're battling over. We're talking about a sum in excess of $300 mil here which is roughly equivalent to the entire payroll of two NFL teams.

You say that medical and transportation costs have been sky rocketing for the last five years but can you show no proof of how that has affected NFL teams. Using just info on the Packers doesn't get it done. We already been down that road. A composite audited financial is fine so long as it footnotes any and all unusual or possibly mischaraterized expense by team. This is the part that's all about trust and the players have little of where the owners are concerned. Their may be some Boy Scouts such as the Packers or Bears organizations but there are also quite a few Al Davis' and Ziggy Wilf's.

Here's my deal if I'm doing it. I'll accept significant rollback now because of economic strain but if I do that I'm gonna ask for a guaranteed participation in the growth of future revenues when the NFL's economics improve, and they will if only by broadcast rights. But these are the two things which the owners refuse to do; 1) Document these rising costs so that there is a fair basis on which to establish a current agreement, 2) Guarantee a percentage of future revenue increases so that all parties benefit from the rising economic tide.

The bottom line is that they want to take much back in the name of current economic imbalance yet they are not willing to share a percentage of their future economic gains. In short they want the 2006 CBA and what it accomplished torn to pieces and shredded. That was their opening stance in negotiations and it's still their stance. Doesn't anyone understand this part of their proposal which neatly gets overlooked by the slight of hand of magnanimously offering to lower their demands to sums that really don't belong to them now anyway. They are a long way from being just $300 mil apart the way I see it and it will stay that way as long as the owners refuse to continue offer an acceptable revenue sharing arrangement.

Originally Posted by dabears54

actually dagan, th owner did Move from the $1 bill original difference to the $600 mill to the last offer of only $300 mill difference, not sure who you can say that isn't negotiating or making offers, please explain

If you weren't so pro-owner, you might see things as a little more gray, and before you go off half-cocked and make claims that I'm saying that they made no concessions whatsoever, please do me the common courtesy of reading my post. The owners never, EVER did anything in good faith. In bargaining, there is never anything done in good faith; it's all about what is good for the party making concessions at the time. The owners saw fit that if they wanted to get anywhere with the players, they would have to do some capitulating. That's not to say that the players aren't equally as culpable, but they are at the owner's mercy and stand probably a less than 25% chance of winning the court battle at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As you would say, DB, "not sure who you can say that isn't negotiating or making offers, please explain"

In bargaining, there is never anything done in good faith

So if the above is true, dagan, how can you ever bargain on good faith?.. not following your train of thought at all, or your point. has NOTHING to do with pro union or pro team.. just have seen the owner's GIVE IN from their initial proposals( called bargaining) and have yet to see the union return the favor and reduce a thing, which isn't bargaining, that's demending and not negotating in good faith.

Are you saying when 2 sides are negotatiing let' say a mortgage its never in good faith? so what do you call proposals and counter proposals?

if a car dealer tells you it will cost 20,000 for a car andyou counter with 17,000 and then the dealer says no, its $20,000" and tehn you say $18,000 and they come abck with "20,000" who is "negotating" and who is demanding and not negotating in good faith?