The players are at fault. They didn't negotiate in good faith.

[S&Bmexico]

Bram for me all this NFLPA vs owners dispute cant be white and black only, both parts have the fault of what is happening now there are not villan or hero, to be honest if the owners really want a deal before last Friday and really belive that the players was blofing when they ask for more information well then can give this info to a 3rd instance maybe a mediator and ask him to review it and keep it confidential and give the NFLPA a final conclusion without share team by team info with them, but they don't do this, insted of this they throw another offer that give the NFLPA a better deal but that they know that they can't accept, for me this is a bloff and another thing u say that the players are employees only and not partners, well if u are talking about the players as an individual person then u are right a player by his own is an employee but as a group the players (NFLPA) and the NFL are partners that's why theyBapplies this desertification to start legal action against the NFL player by player, Im not saying that the owners or the players are wrong, Im saying that this is a buisness and both parts are looking for the best deal they can get for their own interests and as a fan all this dispute make me angry because both parts put their own interests infront of what is best for football but again this is a buisness right so what I can expect of them, I totally disagree with u about ur Al Davis opinion but I respect it and I don't want to discuse this right now but I trully belive that Al is one of the owners that more care about the players, I don't know why some people say that this is the players or the owners fault only, both parts have fault, one more than the other well maybe but if u ask me then I say that the owners 60% and players 40% and why I say this well it's easy the owners start this right, the owners have the opnion of force that the NFLPA accept a trade in time and still get more money than what they get before doing some actions but they don't do this, they want more and they want to put some heat on the players to get it, how well not all the NFL players have a financial stability and a lot of them need this year money to live and if there are not games or team activities then there is no money, or what about all the players that are injured and now need to pay their recovery by their own, or what about all this players that haven't stablished their own on the league and think that if they support the NFLPA then the teams will not want them anymore, this is the owners move and the players want to fight agaist this saying that the players will start legal actions that will cost more money to the owners than give them the deal they want so if u ask me then none of this / parts are negotiating in good faith but that is obvious since both parts want the best deal for their own interests.

[NEO]

Bram absolutely nailed it.

The NFLPA are employees, not business partners. The owners don't have to show them a damn thing.

[raiderroo]

I say both sides are at fault and it mostly comes down to money. Yes there are othe legit issues but mostly for both sides its about money. They should have been able to come to an agreement by now but for whatever reason haven't and blames falls on both sides.

[dnalkaO naF]

From ESPN "A 2009 story in Sports Illustrated estimated that 78 percent of NFL players will go bankrupt in their lifetimes. Last year, Mark Brunell of the Jets went belly-up while he was getting paid. Imagine what's going to happen when no money is coming in at all. Hey, what will you give me for these diamond-encrusted boxers? "

Yes the player's put their health at risk, but they are extremely well compensated for it .

To me the players are looking for a lifetime piggy bank (based on an avg of 4 years of service). Only its not their piggy bank they want to raid, its the owners. They put nothing of their own revenue into the system and demand to receive the majority of the NFL's revenue.

How about this, if the players make less money, maybe they will be less likely appear in a mug shots.

Yeah.
And if they fail at the game of football, they can gowork at a supermarket or convenience store.
I know that'll put a kaibash on the frugal existence they're used to to, but oh well.
If they don't want to do that, than maybe they can put their degree to good use.
I don't see how anyone can blow even the yearly minimum and not have the sense at the same time to put some away for the future knowing that the everage NFL career is oh so brief.
I guess common sense isn't so common anymore.

[00buck]

Bram absolutely nailed it.

The NFLPA are employees, not business partners. The owners don't have to show them a damn thing.

Yeah lets see how much money the owners make without real football players bye bye big tv sponsers, and the owners are way more replacable.

[dnalkaO naF]

First off, you are wrong on so many levels.
Second, you are always wrong on many levels.
Lastly, you should read your Raiders history and then try to prove half of what you state about Al Davis.
Read everything that has happened regarding contracts by Al Davis.
Read about Todd Christensen's situation, or Dave Casper's and many others.
Al Davis would give them an offer, if they didn't accept it would be reduced by the time the player did want to accept it.
Just damn well read some history.
It is there in black and white in many of the autobiographies of former Raiders players.

The owners locked out the players because the NFLPA de-certified.
Under the CBA that the NFLPA and owners agreed to, both were happy with a stipulation that either side could dissolve it. Both sides agreed with that stipulation. Both sides.

The players union at the time knew that the agreement would be voided. Both Gene Upshaw and Paul Tagliabue wanted it as a legacy. They both wanted to leave stating they have left the NFL in an historic period of harmony between the players and the union. That they had both a legacy of leaving the NFL at a time of historic growth.

Read everything you can about the procedures.
The NFLPA (and you can check) have had a single statement throughout: show us the books so we can decide if what you are saying is correct. So, we can decide. Think about that.

Who decides if a business is making enough money?
The employees?
I think not.
Share-holders make that assessment.
And in the NFL the owners are the share-holders.


And as for thinking that Al Davis will come out of it well, you have no fvcking idea of any fvcking thing associated with reality.
Al Davis is not wealthy.
The majority of his personal wealth is the Raiders.
A wealth that is some approx 47% of the total of the franchise.
A franchise valued at about $750m, meaning he is worth about $350m.

You are no doubt unaware, because you live in the state of denial, that he's been trying to sell about 10% of that approx 47% since 2009 without anyone offering a decent price because he will not give them any say in how the Raiders would be run.

Al has been trying to reduce his stake in the Raiders back down to the approx 35% that he owned prior to having to purchase the McGah's estate as part of an out of court settlement.

He sold a 20% stake several years ago because of a mixture of two reasons.
(1) he wanted extra funds for the Raiders.
(2) he wanted to avoid some of the death duties that his family would incur upon his death.


You need to read a little more.
The Raiders are one of the least profitable franchises in the NFL - FACT.
No team has had as many blackouts as the Raiders duirng the past 10 years - FACT.
The Raiders generate some of the lowest levels of revenue in the NFL - FACT.


You have this stupid idea that Al will pay players in order to win a Superbowl.
By doing what?
He could always be trumped in the salary offering stakes if some owners wanted to.
They could cause him to become bankrupt if he did get into a battle of increasing salary offers.


You need to read more.
It is simple.

Keep on 'em pitbull.
You're 100% correct.

The owners put a great offer on the table. The NFLPA should have stepped back and taken a longer look at it and maybe should have taken an internal vote.

I think that no matter what offer was going to be put to the forefront that DeIgnoreUs Smith was going to do everything in his power to reject everything and decertify.

Not that this has anything to do with anything but Smith was a trial and litigation lawyer at Patton Boggs Law Firm in D.C.
Not to mention he served as counsel to Eric Holder when Holder was Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ.
I wonder if Smith counseled Holder in regards to Clinton's order/request for Holder to pardon Mark Rich. If anyone doesn't know anything about the Rich pardon, they should look it up.

[Raiders70]

Yeah lets see how much money the owners make without real football players bye bye big tv sponsers, and the owners are way more replacable.

Tampa and Seattle didn't have real football players when they started (they seem to doing just fine), and its not like there isn't a national training program providing a multitude of replacements players. Quality of football at most will be affected for 2 seasons (all the vets will be back on the field by then). The TV contracts are satisfied, and at most the owners offer TV a small rebate.

Washington and St. Louis fans might argue your point about replacing owners.

[VEfreak]

Bram absolutely nailed it.

The NFLPA are employees, not business partners. The owners don't have to show them a damn thing.

I don't look at it like that. Don't put things in boxes. The NFLPA wants the records, so what if it is a novel demand. Just because no one has ever made this demand before, which I highly doubt, it doesn't mean that they have no right to make this demand.

[als_shadow]

I think his argument might go like this:

The owners voided the CBA because the players are greedy. Albert Haynesworth stole $60 million and then was too damn lazy to play. Why should the owners open up their books? Most of the players can't count money anyway! The owners are the only ones who can be trusted, except Al Davis. The owners should fire all the players and start a new league. Bruce Gradkowski could finally get a fair chance. He's almost as good as Peyton Manning anyway. You're stupid for thinking that Al would trade for Manning. The owners wanted desperately to have a season because they love the fans. Well, all of them except Al. Now that they union is gone I think the players will take the owners last offer.

jtagg... if only he had been more civil. He was great comedy.

[RaiderFunk]

what proof do we have that this was what was actually on the table. Especially with the NFLPA saying that it was not?

[S&Bmexico]

I think his argument might go like this:

The owners voided the CBA because the players are greedy. Albert Haynesworth stole $60 million and then was too damn lazy to play.

sure that this is an argument for the owners and they are right in this but only a few players can get this kind of contracts and Im not talking about the money amount, almost every player contract give him a few of 100% guarantie money the rest is spread in every kind of bonus like if the player be in the team activities or if the player is in the roster and there are other kind of bonus that depend on the player achivments like if a RB get 1000 yrds or if a DL gets a sack for example, some of this bonus are easy to do but sometimes the players can't get this bonus, for example Gholston lose a $9m bonus by don't get a sack, fumble made or fumble recovery in his first 3 yrs in the league and yes u can say that he don't deserve this bonus and u are right but if another player that put all he have on the field and he just can't earn this bonus because a serous injury or because his position don't help him to do this achivments but be a solid player then is unfair that this player don't get his bonus, if the owners give the NFL players contracts for guarantie money only then the players will sign for a lot less but that will not happend because the owners use this bonus as an insuranse and is valid that they want to protect their money, and cases like Heynsworth or Jbust don't help the players but my point here is that not everytime that we see a player sign for big money he will recive all the money that is in his contract because some of the bonus clauses are almost imposible to do, for example just imagine a QB in the AFC with a clause in his contract that say that if he is the top voted QB in the AFC for the probowl then he will get a $5m bonus and his last name is not Maning, Brady or even Rivers, this QB need a monster season plus a great image and broke some records to just imagine that he can have more votes than this 3 and that this 3 don't have a very good season, or a bonus for a DL that will be payed if he is on the 80% of the D snaps well this is almost imposible and if for some reason this player have an injurie then he can forget this bonus

[Brodeur]

Bram absolutely nailed it.

The NFLPA are employees, not business partners. The owners don't have to show them a damn thing.

I absolutly agree with this statement!

Just read the offer in Bram's OP and I really don't know what's wrong with it.
Unfortunatly, I haven't read a lot about the CBA-dicussions, as every article seems to include a lot of difficult terms. Thus making it really hard for me to understand everything, as english isn't my mother tongue and the "system" in general is way different from what we got in europe.

So, could somebody please explain me what the NFLPA actually wants?

[RaiderFunk]

I absolutly agree with this statement!

Just read the offer in Bram's OP and I really don't know what's wrong with it.
Unfortunatly, I haven't read a lot about the CBA-dicussions, as every article seems to include a lot of difficult terms. Thus making it really hard for me to understand everything, as english isn't my mother tongue and the "system" in general is way different from what we got in europe.

So, could somebody please explain me what the NFLPA actually wants?

From what D. Smith said on the NFLPA side that offer that the owners keep saying they made was never on the table. Let's remember the day before the decertification the owners never met with the players. The NFLPA was in the other room eating, talking and watching T.V. while the owners met and they kept delaying then told them to come back the next morning. During that they said the players didn't want to negotiate.

Somebodies lying...

[raiderroo]

From what D. Smith said on the NFLPA side that offer that the owners keep saying they made was never on the table. Let's remember the day before the decertification the owners never met with the players. The NFLPA was in the other room eating, talking and watching T.V. while the owners met and they kept delaying then told them to come back the next morning. During that they said the players didn't want to negotiate.

Somebodies lying...

I have to believe that both sides are lying to some extent. It really seems that the NFLPA planned to decertify and go the letigation route all along no matter what.

But at the same time I doubt that the Owners arent being shaddy themselves.

[da GM]

look at the offer the nfl gave to the players before they de-certified.
Should both sides have looked for a short extension whilst the nflpa actually looked at the offer?
Imho definitely and the nfl would have agreed.


the offer

nfl.com news: League releases details of proposal that union didn't accept


sorry, but can anyone actually tell me what was the issue?
The owners reduced their stated desire to remove an extra $1b down to approx $325m. At the same time the salary cap in 2014 would be $161m - compare this to $128m in 2009 (the last salary cap). This is an increase of 25.8% over the period of 5 years. Are you going to get that amount? In the current economic situation i think not.

Why didn't the nflpa take the time, esnuring little things like the cap must have at least a nominal increase for 2011 over 2009 as had been implied? At the same time, the 90% rule (10#) means salaries would increase.


The nflpa had a fine offer as far as i'm concerned.
They never took the time to look at it and make the amendments.
They never negotiated in good faith.

amen, amen