Thread: Chicago meetings pivotal for Goodell

Originally Posted by soulman

Now how could you even think that let alone say it? If they got precisely what they were after why would there have been any reason to go to court? Give me just one solid reason for it? It makes absolutely no sense at all and the courts would have laughed at them and called the lawsuit frivolous. It would have been "you got what you asked for so what are you bitching about"? It would also have turned the fans against them big time.

It's my guess that they were fully prepared to do it because past experience had told them that what happened was exactly the way the owners would bargain because that's exactly what they had done in the past. Even what's going on now proves that every important thing they do comes down to deadlines that they themselves seem to impose. If the players had planned it all along then the owners did nothing to discourage it. In fact they did just the opposite. The article in the thread starter virtually proves that. Just for good measure here's just one more persons opinion about it. Since I couldn't copy I'll post the link and simple quote my point from it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/La...to-save-season

The questions is; Are the owners being greedy, or are they determined to be the greediest pigs in the history of troughs?

The other question that will be answered is whether Roger Goddell can be an effctive commissioner? It was on his watch that the owners elected to tear up the collective bargaining agreement that had been negotiated and approved in 2006 - not because anyone was losing money, but because those darn players were getting too big a share of the revenue they generated.

This is the entire substance of what I've been saying all along. In a nutshell the owners were asking the players to give back significant amounts of money that they'd already bargained away in 2006. They regretted making that deal so they wanted a rollback to the pre 2006 levels and that was the ongoing basis of their proposals. Until now they have never varied from that stance. I'm sorry but I don't think any sane individual would have accepted that as a formal and final offer. I've never argued as to whether multi-million dollar players deserved this but only that this is typically not the way bargaining is done. You don't normally call an offer that subtracts from it's former starting point as "good faith bargaining" and that's exactly what the NFLPA got from the owners right up until the deadline for decertification.

For two years the owners were told that this kind of a proposal wouldn't be acceptable yet they pushed it right up until the end and then cried foul when the players walked away from the table. What was the use in continuing to negotiate when that premise didn't change. It's like telling your decorator that you hate green walls and everything paint swatch she brings you is one shade of green or the other.

So now it's time to give up the idea of recovering all of what has already been bargained away and quit pushing the same numbers around into different columns. They need new numbers and new columns if they're gonna get this done.

The owners are, indeed, the greediest pigs in the history of troughs. They were turning a profit based on the parameters of the 2006 CBA, yet they wanted to screw the players by taking it back to pre-2006 measures and operate on an antiquated, one-sided system. The players have been wealthy benefactors of a thriving business now for the past generation or more, yet they have never earned as much money in terms of the percentage of what they bring as they deserve. Truthfully, I think a 60/40 compromise of the CBA "revenue pie" is a bit generous toward the owners, who do nothing outside of playing the part of the American aristocracy. They are a ruling oligarchy, but do nothing more than sit by idly, push pencils, and watch their players work hard for the league's profits. Out of this plan, the owners are likely to get the 18 game schedule that they've craved for years despite the obvious objections from the players due to the fact that under the old rules, they wouldn't earn anymore money for their troubles, would have any better health benefits, etc. There are many more things that I could go on and talk about, but these are just some of my feelings on the matter that are further exacerbated by the owners when I hear that the nine owners it would take to dissolve the formation of a deal could appear when it comes time to vote on the new CBA. Get the f*ck over your greed, owners, and let the players play ball and entertain the fans!

Give me just one solid reason for it?

lawsuit fees and more dollars for 2 reasons.

Originally Posted by dabears54

lawsuit fees and more dollars for 2 reasons.

That too! Let's include all this shit in this tirade, DB! lol

Originally Posted by dabears54

bullcrap dagan!.. that is the point Some owners are NOT making money anymore, nor was the 2006 CBA even close to a 'fair" deal.. sorry you think that..

and for PROOF how far off it was... they are talking today of a 48%( not 60% split) AND $1bill off top as 'fair" to both sides..so gies you an idea of how 'unfair" that 2006 deal was.. i have ZERO sympathy for the Owner's because they foolishly panicked and signed it..

BUT by same token, don't have to be naive and say it didn't heavily favor the union( heck even th unin leaders admit that!!)or that owner's 'greedy" because want a decent reutnr on their billion dollar investment, that is just common sense

No, I call bullcrap on you, because the damn article said that the owners were making money. Other articles have cited that the owners AS A WHOLE were making money, so don't give me that load of baloney when you know for a fact that is true.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

No, I call bullcrap on you, because the damn article said that the owners were making money. Other articles have cited that the owners AS A WHOLE were making money, so don't give me that load of baloney when you know for a fact that is true.

that article B.S.( written by the 'christian monitor' fwiw) and said owners are still making money( of course didn't back up this statment with a shred of evidence or facts).. but somehow to you that means must be true?.. and will try again SOME owners are NOT making money now( never said all , just SOME) and yes OVERALL the league is still making money.. So only one missing FACTS was that article you seem to hold dear.

the POINT is you can't have owner's losing money consistently for the health of a league, and tha is what is happening nw and has been getting worse.. so do you just say "screw it! let's keep losing more money each year!! because 'some" clubs still making it.. OR do you intelligently look at the situation and FIX THE PROBLEMS and inequity of the 006 deal that has SOME ( not all but some)
clubs losing money and itsgaining in the loses yearly..

and btw since you felt 60/40 to the players Still was too generous to the owners.. why are the players agreebable to a 48/52 split now.. unless they KNOW how bad and unfair the 60/40 deal was.. just saying you have the ideas wrong

Originally Posted by dabears54

that article B.S.( written by the 'christian monitor' fwiw) and said owners are still making money( of course didn't back up this statment with a shred of evidence or facts).. but somehow to you that means must be true?.. and will try again SOME owners are NOT making money now( never said all , just SOME) and yes OVERALL the league is still making money.. So only one missing FACTS was that article you seem to hold dear.

the POINT is you can't have owner's losing money consistently for the health of a league, and tha is what is happening nw and has been getting worse.. so do you just say "screw it! let's keep losing more money each year!! because 'some" clubs still making it.. OR do you intelligently look at the situation and FIX THE PROBLEMS and inequity of the 006 deal that has SOME ( not all but some)
clubs losing money and itsgaining in the loses yearly..

and btw since you felt 60/40 to the players Still was too generous to the owners.. why are the players agreebable to a 48/52 split now.. unless they KNOW how bad and unfair the 60/40 deal was.. just saying you have the ideas wrong

I don't believe that the players are doing this as a basis of "goodwill" negotiations, if that is what your asking. I think they are doing because they, the players, know that it's the only way that a deal gets done. It's business, and nothing more. It's as cold hearted as that.

BTW, did I piss you off?

Originally Posted by dabears54

but if a 60/40 deal is still 'good for the owners" and "fair to still not enough for players"

Why would you "settle" for forget even the same but 20% LESS now( 48-52).. unless you KNEW the 60/40 was "UNfair" and way too one sided to the players,so know had to take less now?

not pissed off.. just trying to get you to look at logically and not just emotionally or with old and tired wrong ideas..

Call it the "young whipper snapper" in me. I know little about this sort of thing, so I try to read into as much as I can in articles, no matter what the source.

Wait a second...I totally misread that little number...60% players and 40% owners...not good. Sorry, I'm off base. I've done that twice now in two different threads. It should be more like 55/45 or closer to what is being called for now. You're right. Carry on; I'm a dumb ass.