Thread: Trotter: NFL won't expand season to 18 games

[QUOTE=dabears54;798364]

Originally Posted by soulman

Seems that way, but to me that's because the Union had NO intention of bargaining anyway from the onset and was dead set on the "sue and court route" from day one, so really didn't matter the offer and they have used that is a rally point.

The players say differently and I can't see what they gain from a lock-out. They're all on a layoff unless they either reach an agreement on a new CBA or the courts grant an injunction to prevent it. It also seems to me that the owners have gotten themselves far more prepared for a stand off than the players. The owners are the guys who hired the "Dream Team', not the players.

I don't believe the players had no intention of bargaining because they did, and some matters were settled. I do think that they had no intention of giving up as much $$$ as the owners wanted them to unless they got what they felt was a quid pro quo. That's always been the major point of contention and it's here where the players are playing hard ball. I'm not neccessarily on their side but I do understand where their coming from.

To them the owners are asking them to give up something they already had in hand from the last CBA. Who ever bargains away something that they feel they already have an agreement on. That's a little backwards isn't it?

[QUOTE=soulman;798441]

Originally Posted by dabears54

The players say differently and I can't see what they gain from a lock-out. They're all on a layoff unless they either reach an agreement on a new CBA or the courts grant an injunction to prevent it. It also seems to me that the owners have gotten themselves far more prepared for a stand off than the players. The owners are the guys who hired the "Dream Team', not the players.

I don't believe the players had no intention of bargaining because they did, and some matters were settled. I do think that they had no intention of giving up as much $$$ as the owners wanted them to unless they got what they felt was a quid pro quo. That's always been the major point of contention and it's here where the players are playing hard ball. I'm not neccessarily on their side but I do understand where their coming from.

To them the owners are asking them to give up something they already had in hand from the last CBA. Who ever bargains away something that they feel they already have an agreement on. That's a little backwards isn't it?

Not really... what this boils down to is simple economics.. the old CBA had both sharing revenue but not costs( which is why the Union loves the 2006 cba so much)..So they get a bigger slice of the pie on the revenue side, but here's the kicker don't have to share in the ever burgeoning Cost side of the equation. THAT is what the disagreement is all about. Costs like all in America going up quickly and what "was" still a decent deal in 2006, isn't in 2011 costs... So be it $100 mill or $1 billion( that's what negotiations about to decide the #),,, the "fight" is just about the costs of the NFL now and how much should the Union as a "partner" share, and its a reasonable request, with all the costs skyrocketing and revenue flatening out going forward.

[QUOTE=dabears54;798449]

Originally Posted by soulman

Not really... what this boils down to is simple economics.. the old CBA had both sharing revenue but not costs( which is why the Union loves the 2006 cba so much)..So they get a bigger slice of the pie on the revenue side, but here's the kicker don't have to share in the ever burgeoning Cost side of the equation. THAT is what the disagreement is all about. Costs like all in America going up quickly and what "was" still a decent deal in 2006, isn't in 2011 costs... So be it $100 mill or $1 billion( that's what negotiations about to decide the #),,, the "fight" is just about the costs of the NFL now and how much should the Union as a "partner" share, and its a reasonable request, with all the costs skyrocketing and revenue flatening out going forward.

But here's where that argument falls apart. The sharing of or partnering up on costs brings with it the also reasonable request of exactly what those added costs are. Or in othe words if I'm being asked to pay for something what am I paying for an what do I get in return.

The union has asked for those figures for over two years now and still hasn't gotten them. I don't know whether what the owners are asking is reasonable and neither do you or the players but you've always supported the owners right to privacy in this matter. If you and I were partnering on a revenue stream and you asked for something off the top to meet rising expenses I think I'd be well within the bounds of reason in asking you to show me the numbers that prove it and I'm very sure you'd ask the same from me it the situation was reversed.

After reading the players points in that teleconference call I don't know how anyone could say that they were being unreasonable by not trusting the owners. Nothing I've read or listened to about this would believe me to completely trust them either. I see them as having done anything but bargain in good faith. They knew for two years there'd be a "come to Jesus meeting" over this issue and the way they prepared for it was to feather their own beds with TV revenue, not by considering the unions requests for data to support their contentions. They knew than that they would never give in on the audited financials issue but they waited until the last minute to toss out another unacceptable proposal knowing full well that it could never be adequately reviewed in time for the union reach it's deadline for decertification.

[QUOTE=soulman;798519]

Originally Posted by dabears54

But here's where that argument falls apart. The sharing of or partnering up on costs brings with it the also reasonable request of exactly what those added costs are. Or in othe words if I'm being asked to pay for something what am I paying for an what do I get in return.

The union has asked for those figures for over two years now and still hasn't gotten them. I don't know whether what the owners are asking is reasonable and neither do you or the players but you've always supported the owners right to privacy in this matter. If you and I were partnering on a revenue stream and you asked for something off the top to meet rising expenses I think I'd be well within the bounds of reason in asking you to show me the numbers that prove it and I'm very sure you'd ask the same from me it the situation was reversed.

After reading the players points in that teleconference call I don't know how anyone could say that they were being unreasonable by not trusting the owners. Nothing I've read or listened to about this would believe me to completely trust them either. I see them as having done anything but bargain in good faith. They knew for two years there'd be a "come to Jesus meeting" over this issue and the way they prepared for it was to feather their own beds with TV revenue, not by considering the unions requests for data to support their contentions. They knew than that they would never give in on the audited financials issue but they waited until the last minute to toss out another unacceptable proposal knowing full well that it could never be adequately reviewed in time for the union reach it's deadline for decertification.

actually think you have it wrong( its ok to gree to disagree), but do not think the union EVER wanted to do anything but sue. and again its one thing to ask for what the "shared expenses" are and document them, and quite another to say "we need the lst 10 years of ALL financial statments" (90% of which have nothing to do with shared expenses) as they kept saying,, those 2 things are WORLD"S APART and you know that... that to me is just "white noise" and not bargaining in good faith, sorry

here's what an agent is hearing:

Frustration

I had a chance to speak to an NFL owner on Sunday. He told me that he and the owners were very frustrated by the CBA negotiation process. He told me “it was a long two weeks and a big waste of time. We knew we may not have reached an agreement by the extended deadline but we should have kept talking in earnest. There was no need for them to walk away from the table.”
While setting up a workout for one of my draftees, an AFC General Manager told me yesterday that: “the owners went from being frustrated during the negotiations to now being just pissed off at the players and union leaders.”

The group of guys most frustrated through the lockout is definitely the free agents who were prevented from exploring the 2010 market and not getting their payday along with a nice guaranteed component. This group by far has the biggest grievance with the current system and will have a strong case if they get their day in court.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...y-for-all.html

DaBears DaBating has always been one of my most enjoyable pastimes. I have no problem at all doing it with someone who's just as bullheaded as I am. Hmmmm......that's supposed to be a compliment but it may not read that way.

I think we should just mail a couple of Journey song to everyone.

The owners and players get; "Separate Ways" from the album "World's Apart."

And to the fans; "Don't Stop Believing."

It's the least we could do.

Maybe we can just email them these;

Originally Posted by Dagan81

DB and soulman, you two are master debaters.

unlike you Dag, who is a Masterbater