Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 131

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

  1. #1
    Bram Raider's Avatar
    Bram Raider is offline Limited Membership
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    17,093

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

    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
    1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union's proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

    2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

    3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury, the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multiyear injury guarantee.

    4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

    5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

    6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

    7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

    8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

    9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

    10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.
    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.

  2. #2
    MadBomber24's Avatar
    MadBomber24 is offline
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    12,880
    Sorry bram but I disagree. The players were happy with the old CBA. The owners chose to end it and ask the players for more money. The players said ok but you need to show us that your reasons are for wanting more money are true. The owners said no we won't show you, you should just trust us.

    So while the owners offer might be fine, it is still worse for the players than they already had. IMO the players have every right to refuse to negotiate until the owners prove their claims.

  3. #3
    Bram Raider's Avatar
    Bram Raider is offline Limited Membership
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    17,093
    Quote Originally Posted by MadBomber24 View Post
    Sorry bram but I disagree. The players were happy with the old CBA. The owners chose to end it and ask the players for more money. The players said ok but you need to show us that your reasons are for wanting more money are true. The owners said no we won't show you, you should just trust us.

    So while the owners offer might be fine, it is still worse for the players than they already had. IMO the players have every right to refuse to negotiate until the owners prove their claims.
    Except that under the litigation route they are not acting in good faith. You know that eventually they will re-certify and negotiate a new CBA.

    If they really wanted to take it through the courts then let it and the NFL be damned.
    There is no reason to suggest that all NFL teams would pay anything like as much as the players expect.
    There would be nothing to suggest that all teams would necessarily have rosters of 53, meaning that players would not be employed that would under current regulations.
    There would be no reason for the NFL (and no legal possibility) to share revenue beyond already negotiated TV deals.
    Antitrust would mean that it would be illegal to share revenue, to conduct a draft and many of the other things that we take for granted.

    Would some owners become less wealthy?
    Yes, but others like the Redksins, Cowboys, Patriots, Broncos, Jets, Giants and several others would continue to prosper.
    Fans would still watch games. We've found that in Europe, even if there are only a few teams that can eventually win in the end.
    It's a sickness.
    Fans don't always want competitive games, they want to see their team win!

    The offer was substantial.
    The players expect to be business partners, yet they are not.
    They are employees.
    The rights they have would change entirely under antitrust to their detriment.

    Take for instance injury on the field.
    If a franchise could ensure they had given players every single item of protection AND could show they had instructed players on how to keep safe, then if a player became injured on the field they could be sacked as no longer able to fulfil their duties.

    There is no definite that player wages would just increase. Why pay Peyton Manning $20m a year when you can go to the college game and pick up Cam Newton for say $5m? And as there would be no salary minimum wage for players teams could pay what they want.

    The players need to realise that the NFL is big business in part because of betting, in part because of the increase of fantasy leagues and in part due to the product. There is not a definite direct correlation between the players in the league at the moment and the viewing public. In fact, I would ssay that given the huge amounts now gambled on the NFL, there is more of a correlation between internet betting and NFL viewing than the players.

    You and others state that it would be worse for them?
    Of course, but as oppose to what?
    If you work for a business that has an increase in profits it doesn't necessarily mean that your wages rise.
    Similarly, often if the profits decrease you aren't necessarily paid less.
    Players are employees not partners.

    And it is interesting in a poll of over 22,000 on profootballtalk, more people have voted the players are at fault than either the owners, or both the owners and players.

  4. #4
    als_next_generation's Avatar
    als_next_generation is offline
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In Al's shadow
    Posts
    5,063
    The owners didn't bargain in good faith.

    The owners voided the previous CBA.

    The owners offer, which you love so much Bram, is missing a key element demanded by the players - proof. The owners KNEW, yes, they KNEW, that the players would not accept any offer with out proof.

    Then, and this is proof that the OWNERS, yes Bram the OWNERS, never intended to bargain in good faith - they immediately locked out the playes. In good faith negotiating, they should have continued on-ward.

    The owners, except Al Davis, are a bunch of greedy, self-centered, pompous, mis-guided a-holes.

    The players are only asking for proof, PROOF, from a negotiating party who had already renegged once by voiding the previous agreement.
    During Manziel's senior season in high school, he compiled 45 passing TDs and 30 rushing TDs plus 1 TD reception and returned a kickoff for a touchdown = 77 TDs. Think how many TDs Johnny Football will have as an NFL rookie!!! Probably 200 TDs!!! Maybe 20 TDs vs. Raiders in one game!!!

    Everything I post is my opinion as I am an anonymous internet poster. Respect your fellow Raider family members.

  5. #5
    Bram Raider's Avatar
    Bram Raider is offline Limited Membership
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    17,093
    The owners should call the players bluff.
    Say okay, we have acted under the CBA as an antitrust organisation, but you allowed it by giving us an exemption.
    We'll stop acting as a unity and act against each other.

    Several steps need to be taken.
    (1) All revenue sharing needs to be sorted. Obviously the only things that can now be shared are existing contracts like those TV contracts. All gate receipts and other revenues are no longer allowable as that is in breach of antitrust.
    (2) There is no minimum wage and obvioulsy if you're out of contract you're free to find alternative employment.
    (3) There will be no future drafts. That is a breach of antitrust legislation.
    (4) Sorry, but we cannot force teams to have 53 men on the roster. They can only have as many as they can pay for.
    (5) And of course the uncoming draft really doesn't matter as players drafted are not under contract so they can refuse to play for the drafting team if they wish.

    Right, lets get started.



    What do you mean the Packers have had to sack 15 of their Superbowl winning team? They can't afford their contracts because the revenue they generate is insufficient? Too bad. Those players can either find another club or take a new contract that pays them less.

    What do you mean that there are lots of veteran players that cannot find jobs? They won't accept the offers for employment? What do you mean they were paid more last year and the offers now are far less? Well, thats the free market. Why pay a veteran 3 times as much as a desperate college graduate?

    What do you mean that the Redksins and Cowboys have decided to stop recruiting? You mean they have stopped offering the sizable contracts that you expected? But they are happy with their work-force. What do you mean there are numerous better qualified players without jobs than what they have employed? Really? So what, there isn't a vacancy.

  6. #6
    HOFBoundBrown's Avatar
    HOFBoundBrown is offline Limited Membership
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,564
    Show me the Car Fax!

  7. #7
    Bram Raider's Avatar
    Bram Raider is offline Limited Membership
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    17,093
    Quote Originally Posted by als_shadow View Post
    The owners didn't bargain in good faith.

    The owners voided the previous CBA.

    The owners offer, which you love so much Bram, is missing a key element demanded by the players - proof. The owners KNEW, yes, they KNEW, that the players would not accept any offer with out proof.

    Then, and this is proof that the OWNERS, yes Bram the OWNERS, never intended to bargain in good faith - they immediately locked out the playes. In good faith negotiating, they should have continued on-ward.

    The owners, except Al Davis, are a bunch of greedy, self-centered, pompous, mis-guided a-holes.

    The players are only asking for proof, PROOF, from a negotiating party who had already renegged once by voiding the previous agreement.

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    595
    Once the ruling came down that the owners couldn't use any money from the TV deal during the lockout, the players gained a TON of leverage in the negotiations.

  9. #9
    00buck's Avatar
    00buck is offline
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    229
    Anything less then the original CBA is a slap in the face, and anybody that doesn't see that needs to look at how they would feel if there boss said hey how about taking a 15% or more pay cut even though I did good last year, profit wise. No one would like this, and no matter what the owners will not show there bottom line, because it would prove that there was no basis to opt out of the original deal, so it's the owners fault they opted out, and I will support the players no matter what. They are the product without them there is no reason to watch the NFL! Solidarity Rules

  10. #10
    als_next_generation's Avatar
    als_next_generation is offline
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In Al's shadow
    Posts
    5,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Bram Raider View Post
    And it is interesting in a poll of over 22,000 on profootballtalk, more people have voted the players are at fault than either the owners, or both the owners and players.
    So... the players should negotiate a contract by taking public polls and going off the results of people who are not players?

    You sir, are incompetent, to act as a spokesman for the players.

    And, let's not forget, the owners have people monitoring the internet. They are actively intervening under false names/ paid dupes to post anti-union and anti-players propaganda.

    Bram, are you really a Raider fan? Do you know that Mr. Davis is PRO UNION and the biggest supporter of the NFLPA? Yet, you come on an officially sanctioned Raider site and bash Mr. Davis.
    Last edited by als_next_generation; 03-13-2011 at 01:11 PM. Reason: civility
    During Manziel's senior season in high school, he compiled 45 passing TDs and 30 rushing TDs plus 1 TD reception and returned a kickoff for a touchdown = 77 TDs. Think how many TDs Johnny Football will have as an NFL rookie!!! Probably 200 TDs!!! Maybe 20 TDs vs. Raiders in one game!!!

    Everything I post is my opinion as I am an anonymous internet poster. Respect your fellow Raider family members.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    595
    Also, the players do not want an 18 game season under any circumstances. In their eyes this isn't anything to negotiate on.

  12. #12
    Bram Raider's Avatar
    Bram Raider is offline Limited Membership
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    17,093
    Quote Originally Posted by als_shadow View Post
    So... the players should negotiate a contract by taking public polls and going off the results of people who are not players?

    You sir, are incompetent, to act as a spokesman for the players.

    And, let's not forget, the owners have people monitoring the internet. They are actively intervening under false names/ paid dupes to post anti-union and anti-players propaganda.

    Bram, are you really a Raider fan? Do you know that Mr. Davis is PRO UNION and the biggest supporter of the NFLPA? Yet, you come on an officially sanctioned Raider site and bash Mr. Davis. You should be banned for this thread!!!
    You are a uneducated fool.
    Most of the people on here, until the pro-Al brigade started to act as trolls and get away with calling other members names were very soundly against much of what Al Davis did and has done. We knew our history.

    I'll bash Al Davis all I want.
    I'll state for the last frigging time that when Al Davis dies I hope all the morons that state Al Davis is the Raiders will fvck off and support the fvcking Broncos or start watching women's volleyball. Why? Because if Al Davis is the frigging Raiders then the Raiders will die when Al Davis dies.

    But they fvcking won't.
    No, they'll harp back to the days when he ran it and call out anyone who says anything else. They'll bitch and moan. And still watch the games.

    Al Davis is not, never has been and never will be the Raiders.



    Back to the point.
    The Union (and you can check) has not placed forward any proposals for negotiation.
    That is not negotiation.

    And as for owners monitoring the internet? Is this the same source that told you that Manning and BRady would move clubs. What they haven't by now? Really. We have a memory and your comments are often borderline retarded.

  13. #13
    NoClapsPlease is offline Banned
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    8,114
    Quote Originally Posted by MadBomber24 View Post
    Sorry bram but I disagree. The players were happy with the old CBA. The owners chose to end it and ask the players for more money. The players said ok but you need to show us that your reasons are for wanting more money are true. The owners said no we won't show you, you should just trust us.

    So while the owners offer might be fine, it is still worse for the players than they already had. IMO the players have every right to refuse to negotiate until the owners prove their claims.
    pretty much

    i think the NFLPA's beef with the whole thing is based on principals now.

    the owners were already caught with-holding what? 4 billion?

    im curious as to why the owners wont release the financial documents supporting their claim instead of trying to pull the wool over everyone's face.

  14. #14
    DarkLordAlDavis's Avatar
    DarkLordAlDavis is offline
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Temples Of Syrinx
    Posts
    10,161
    The owners are 110% at fault.......

    Like others said. THEY opted out of the contract. Not the players. All the players wanted was to continue what they had been getting...

    The owners have never made more money yet they wanted a billion a year give-back. Which they said they cut in half. Thats still a huge wn-warranted giveback.....

    I dont care "if" the players didnt bargain in "good faith". Because they would get crushed that way. The players would have to take what the owners gave them....

    Look what happened to the NHL playaaaa's. They bargained in "good faith" and didnt de-certify. They missed a whole season and got their asses handed to them......

    The players had no choice but to de-certify. I would have done it even sooner.....

    I hope the players crush the owners in court.......
    In the Kingdom of the Blind. The One Eyed Man is King.......

    No Quarterback with pick 5. Especially the noodle arm Bridgewater or Carr V2.0.......

  15. #15
    Bram Raider's Avatar
    Bram Raider is offline Limited Membership
    Chairman of the Board
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    17,093
    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoastRaida View Post
    Also, the players do not want an 18 game season under any circumstances. In their eyes this isn't anything to negotiate on.
    Fine.
    Again I say the NFL calls their bluff.

    State that the NFL will play a 20 game regular season starting in 2015.
    If players don't want to play then they'll have to resign or can be allowed to leave after their contracts expire. The few players under contract at that time will be able to decide if they will play the 20 games or resign.

    All future contracts will have provision for 20 regular season games.
    If you don't want to sign up for that I'm sure a lot of players will take your place.

    Remember, the NFLPA is not a Union.
    They cannot go on strike.
    They cannot act as a single body and black-list anyone.



    Players are employees.
    They are not partners.
    And now they have de-certified, they have no rights to see their employers books.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •