PDA

View Full Version : Report: NFLPA will decertify by Thursday. Looks like lengthy battle upcoming.


SoCalBronco
02-26-2011, 05:01 PM
Get ready for the labor battle to be turned up a notch.

ESPN’s Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen report that the NFLPA will decertify by Thursday in the hopes of stopping the NFL owners from locking the players out.

This move would further push the NFL-NFLPA standoff from the negotiating table into the courtrooms.

For more, see:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/26/report-union-plans-to-decertify/

HooptyHoops
02-26-2011, 05:08 PM
Get ready for the labor battle to be turned up a notch.

ESPN’s Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen report that the NFLPA will decertify by Thursday in the hopes of stopping the NFL owners from locking the players out.

This move would further push the NFL-NFLPA standoff from the negotiating table into the courtrooms.

For more, see:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/26/report-union-plans-to-decertify/

What does decertify exactly mean, when in comes to unions?

SoCalBronco
02-26-2011, 05:13 PM
What does decertify exactly mean, when in comes to unions?

It will allow them to sue the league for alleged anti-trust violations and it would also prevent the league from locking the playeres out, but the league will claim the decertification is a sham...actually I believe the league has already pre-emptively filed something with the NLRB on this issue a couple weeks ago.

Kaylore
02-26-2011, 05:19 PM
Boiled down very, very basically, they dissolve the union "officially" so as to make each player an independent employee. The idea is you can't stop an employee from working. This will allow the players as a whole to jointly sue the league. It is probably the only trick they have in their bag and there's an outside chance it could work, but probably won't.

theAPAOps5
02-26-2011, 05:21 PM
Just as the greedy owners not collectively working together before the lockout isn't a sham. The owners are hypocrites and pathetic in this whole mess. Actually it is probably more like a few owners tainting the pool for the sum. This will take a while to end.

Kaylore
02-26-2011, 05:23 PM
Just as the greedy owners not collectively working together before the lockout isn't a sham. The owners are hypocrites and pathetic in this whole mess. Actually it is probably more like a few owners tainting the pool for the sum. This will take a while to end.

See, while I see both sides, and I agree the owners are being stupid in many ways, I generally agree with them on the core issues.

SoCalBronco
02-26-2011, 05:24 PM
Just as the greedy owners not collectively working together before the lockout isn't a sham. The owners are hypocrites and pathetic in this whole mess. Actually it is probably more like a few owners tainting the pool for the sum. This will take a while to end.

It's all about leverage right now. I dont think the players can win this long-term. The owners have the network money (even if it has to be paid back) and they've been amassing a war chest in anticipation of this. They had the right to opt-out of the agreement and if they feel they have the leverage, there's no reason for them not to try and get a bigger piece of the pie...same for the players.

HooptyHoops
02-26-2011, 05:47 PM
All of this is horrible news for us NFL fans....I just want to watch some football in 2011!!

Lev Vyvanse
02-26-2011, 06:06 PM
Boiled down very, very basically, they dissolve the union "officially" so as to make each player an independent employee. The idea is you can't stop an employee from working. This will allow the players as a whole to jointly sue the league. It is probably the only trick they have in their bag and there's an outside chance it could work, but probably won't.

Last time this happened the players got free agency. I don't think it's a "trick".

Cosmo
02-26-2011, 06:26 PM
Bad guy in all of this:

DeMaurice Smith

Always is the Union Head that causes the problems.

meangene
02-26-2011, 06:45 PM
They could also agree to extend the current agreement if they feel they are making progress. This is a procedural matter for the union - if they don't play the card before the current CBA expires, they lose it.

montrose
02-26-2011, 06:48 PM
Just as the greedy owners not collectively working together before the lockout isn't a sham. The owners are hypocrites and pathetic in this whole mess. Actually it is probably more like a few owners tainting the pool for the sum. This will take a while to end.

http://www.bonafidesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alg_jerry-richardson.jpg

bombay
02-26-2011, 07:04 PM
I hope the players 'win' in the NFL. I hope the owners 'win' in the NBA.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-26-2011, 07:07 PM
I'm curious as to what will happen to a locked-out NFL that has been wildly successful despite what is essentially an economic depression. They couldn't have timed this any worse IMO. It's a perfect storm.

baja
02-26-2011, 07:13 PM
It's a great time for a start up league.

baja
02-26-2011, 07:14 PM
TV has to pay anyway and the have the time slot where the NFL used to be. Let the games go on.....

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-26-2011, 07:25 PM
Sure looks like Dumb and Dumber to me!

http://www.bonafidesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alg_jerry-richardson.jpg http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/content/Image/07-28-2009/DeMaurice-SMith.jpg

Richardson's total disrespect to the players annoys me, and Smith's "kissing up" to the media makes me wonder "what the fork" the NFLPA were thinking in choosing him.

loborugger
02-26-2011, 09:12 PM
Dumb question:

If the NFLPA decerts this coming week and each player becomes an employee, doesnt each individual state in which the player/owner reside become a different jurisdiction with different labor laws? Or is that relevant?

gunns
02-26-2011, 09:15 PM
Just as the greedy owners not collectively working together before the lockout isn't a sham. The owners are hypocrites and pathetic in this whole mess. Actually it is probably more like a few owners tainting the pool for the sum. This will take a while to end.

I have to agree with this. I was totally neutral as far as not siding with either side and being disgusted with both. But the more I hear and read, the owners are pathetic. I truly hope this thing comes back to bite them in the end. It may only be a few but if the rest don't take a stand they are as big a hypocrites as the few.

bfoflcommish
02-26-2011, 09:55 PM
I have to agree with this. I was totally neutral as far as not siding with either side and being disgusted with both. But the more I hear and read, the owners are pathetic. I truly hope this thing comes back to bite them in the end. It may only be a few but if the rest don't take a stand they are as big a hypocrites as the few.

You Do? Because you don't think it will get passed down to fans via ticket prices concessions, etc????

lostknight
02-26-2011, 09:56 PM
Millionares versus Billionares part I.

Interesting enough, this particular tack is amusing. Basically, it's the union admiting that their organization is more of a liability. Strangely, I wonder if the Union has thought through the fact that decertifying allows the owners to write any contract they want on a per-employee basis?

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
02-26-2011, 09:57 PM
Screw it! Give me Scrub Ball!!!

Ugly Duck
02-26-2011, 11:18 PM
Would a Superbowl go into the record book if it is played by scabs?

Kaylore
02-26-2011, 11:24 PM
Last time this happened the players got free agency. I don't think it's a "trick".

I wasn't meaning to trivialize it. I meant it in terms of "one more trick up my sleeve" type of thing. And the difference between then and now is the Owners have been planning this a long time and are unhappy with the current deal whereas previously it was the other way around with the players wanting more money. The Owners are going to dig in and ride this into the season so the players start losing money and start complaining.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-26-2011, 11:27 PM
Would a Superbowl go into the record book if it is played by scabs?

Its a lockout, not a strike. No scabs

schaaf
02-26-2011, 11:27 PM
I don't see why the Union has such a problem with the OWNERS getting more money than the players.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-26-2011, 11:29 PM
I don't see why the Union has such a problem with the OWNERS getting more money than the players.

The owners already get more money than the players. Currently they take a billion off the top before the rest is shared (from what i understand). The owners now want to take 2 (though i assume this is just a negotiating point). Though its millionaires v billionaires, if theres one thing i learned...the richer you are, the more you horde. The fact that they wont open their books here is telling.

gunns
02-27-2011, 12:01 AM
You Do? Because you don't think it will get passed down to fans via ticket prices concessions, etc????

Yeah I do. If they decide to pass their idiocy down to the fans, the fans have a recourse to not pay. And that continues to bite them in the ass. With the economy the way it is, it's a tight rope the owners have chosen to walk.

TailgateNut
02-27-2011, 04:18 AM
It's all about leverage right now. I dont think the players can win this long-term. The owners have the network money (even if it has to be paid back) and they've been amassing a war chest in anticipation of this. They had the right to opt-out of the agreement and if they feel they have the leverage, there's no reason for them not to try and get a bigger piece of the pie...same for the players.


I thought I heard/ read somewhere that they owners also have insurance coverage for losses incurred due to a strike/lockout.

meangene
02-27-2011, 04:21 AM
Dumb question:

If the NFLPA decerts this coming week and each player becomes an employee, doesnt each individual state in which the player/owner reside become a different jurisdiction with different labor laws? Or is that relevant?

Judge Doty retains jurisdiction until the current CBA runs out which is why they need to file before it does. Otherwise, I still think they file a class action but have to wait 6 months which does not help their bargaining right now. And, they may not get Doty who has a record of favoring the union position.

peacepipe
02-27-2011, 05:54 AM
I wasn't meaning to trivialize it. I meant it in terms of "one more trick up my sleeve" type of thing. And the difference between then and now is the Owners have been planning this a long time and are unhappy with the current deal whereas previously it was the other way around with the players wanting more money. The Owners are going to dig in and ride this into the season so the players start losing money and start complaining.The NFLPA wasn't caught by surprise. they have been actively telling there players to save their money for 2 yrs.

Garcia Bronco
02-27-2011, 06:27 AM
durung the last CBA the plays got half a percent of the entire revenue. Owners want it back.

theAPAOps5
02-27-2011, 07:20 AM
It's all about leverage right now. I dont think the players can win this long-term. The owners have the network money (even if it has to be paid back) and they've been amassing a war chest in anticipation of this. They had the right to opt-out of the agreement and if they feel they have the leverage, there's no reason for them not to try and get a bigger piece of the pie...same for the players.

I respect that they are using the tools allowed to them. But the collusion with each other all the past season is what gets me mad. Then when you hear that the Carolina Panthers owner is going all Gaffney and being an ass to the players it makes is harder to understand their side.

I am 100% with the players. They were fine with the system as is. The owners wanted more and this is on top of what they aren't disclosing in the "other" revenue.

theAPAOps5
02-27-2011, 07:21 AM
Screw it! Give me Scrub Ball!!!

Owners are locking out the players. This isn't a strike. No scrub players, this is all on the owners.

TheReverend
02-27-2011, 07:48 AM
I thought I heard/ read somewhere that they owners also have insurance coverage for losses incurred due to a strike/lockout.

Same... which is really stupid to me. Can I go out and legally buy insurance if I feel like intentionally burning down my house for cash?

Lev Vyvanse
02-27-2011, 08:29 AM
Same... which is really stupid to me. Can I go out and legally buy insurance if I feel like intentionally burning down my house for cash?

I think it's a misconception. I am pretty sure the "insurance" is the guaranteed TV revenue. That money will have to be paid back by the owners during future seasons.

baja
02-27-2011, 08:43 AM
I think it's a misconception. I am pretty sure the "insurance" is the guaranteed TV revenue. That money will have to be paid back by the owners during future seasons.

Are you sure I have never read this anywhere (payback).

That One Guy
02-27-2011, 08:51 AM
Are you sure I have never read this anywhere (payback).

The money the NFL receives will be "paid back" through lower payments from the TV folks in the future. In the end though, the NFL has to pay them back for the money plus interest. It'll never be the NFL handing over a check though. Just reduced income.

Broncojef
02-27-2011, 09:38 AM
Well I hope the owners do it right and end the damn union once and for all.

peacepipe
02-27-2011, 09:39 AM
Well I hope the owners do it right and end the damn union once and for all.the NFLPA isn't going anywhere.

AZorange1
02-27-2011, 09:39 AM
Now let me see if I have this straight. Most of us get were we are through hard work, a few breaks and a lot of years doin' it. Can it be argued that players work harder than the average Joe to get into the NFL? Have the owners worked harder than we do? I think about this and after knowing what it has taken for those of us that can be considered "sucessful" to get where we are in comparison to both owners and players, I get sick at the thought that these guys are b****ing that a couple of million isn't enough or A BILLION isn't worth it. (this coming from a-holes that own teams worth more than third world countries) We are addiccted to this sport and they all know it, so prepare to open up those wallets even more friends, cause you sure as hell don't expect the money to come from anyplace other than us do you?

broncocalijohn
02-27-2011, 09:39 AM
Anybody up for some UFL? Baja, this is the other league.

baja
02-27-2011, 09:39 AM
The money the NFL receives will be "paid back" through lower payments from the TV folks in the future. In the end though, the NFL has to pay them back for the money plus interest. It'll never be the NFL handing over a check though. Just reduced income.

That will contribute to an even more unleveled playing field for negotiations.

The players should try extra hard to make a deal sooner than later.

The longer it goes on the lesser the deal the owners will be able to make and stay in business.

In short the players are fqcked. Wonder if they know it yet?

baja
02-27-2011, 09:44 AM
Anybody up for some UFL? Baja, this is the other league.

Show competitive football and people will soon be happy with the new product.

That One Guy
02-27-2011, 09:48 AM
the NFLPA isn't going anywhere.

I think I read that if they decertify, they can't become a union again for a number of years. Something around 5 or so.

peacepipe
02-27-2011, 10:27 AM
I think I read that if they decertify, they can't become a union again for a number of years. Something around 5 or so.they can recertify at anytime they want. this isn't the first time the NFLPA decertified, what they have to wait on is any anti-trust lawsuits that will be filed once a lockout happens to be resolved in court.

Cito Pelon
02-27-2011, 10:39 AM
Seems to me the owners are asking for too much. They want more money, and also want more regular season games. That's like two kicks in the nuts to the players, one from the front and another from the back.

The combination of a lesser share of the pie to the players, PLUS an 18 game season is trying to grab too much too fast by the owners.

doonwise
02-27-2011, 10:43 AM
Question:
If there is no 2011-2012 football season, do we draft at #2 again at next year's 2012 draft??

That One Guy
02-27-2011, 10:45 AM
they can recertify at anytime they want. this isn't the first time the NFLPA decertified, what they have to wait on is any anti-trust lawsuits that will be filed once a lockout happens to be resolved in court.

You're right, not sure what I read.

On a different note though, would the NFL be able to deem themselves just an organization for interested football teams to play. Make the requirements to participate in their functions almost exactly like the CBA reflects (you must pay A but no more than b, you cannot have more than 53 members, etc) and the teams just use that as justification to participate in these games being organized. They might not be able to do the draft but they could continue to operate. Maybe a "you cannot pay more than 1 rookie x amount of dollars"...

Their participation in an arranged game wouldn't necessarily meet the criteria of collusion, I wouldn't think. The risk would be other teams trying to get in, other leagues trying to lure teams away, etc.

Cito Pelon
02-27-2011, 11:13 AM
I don't see why the Union has such a problem with the OWNERS getting more money than the players.

I can see why the owners want a larger slice of the pie. They pay all the overhead, they pay for the medical care for the players (and that's a LOT of medical care).

OTOH, the owners gave the players the 60% of revenue with the last CBA, so they shouldn't cry like little babies now. They signed that CBA agreement in 2006, and now they want to make up for the lost profits too fast, IMO.

The owners should show a little flexibility from where they are currently at.

Play2win
02-27-2011, 01:32 PM
This might be a silly question. I haven't really been keeping up-- But, what if the owners just fill up their teams with players that aren't in the NFL at a rate of pay that is more moderate?

Don't respect the contracts to the NFL players (not guaranteed anyway, right?) and just hire/fill their teams up with available talent. The talent pool of football players today is leap and bounds above what it has ever been in the past. And in this economy, there are probably talented player that jump at the chance to make "only" a few million.

It would be a re-alligning and a re-setting of the scales. Some would say a more proper allignment, some would say not.

I know it is a drastic measure, but what is really stopping it from happening?

peacepipe
02-27-2011, 01:48 PM
your overestimating the amt of talent out there,no one likes ****ty football(XFL), either way what would stop the new batch of players from unionizing? they would be in the same boat with lesser talent.

Play2win
02-27-2011, 01:51 PM
your overestimating the amt of talent out there,no one likes ****ty football(XFL), either way what would stop the new batch of players from unionizing? they would be in the same boat with lesser talent.

I'm just saying if the owners did take a stand, It is THEIR league after all isn't it?

I was mostly just curious.

I'm sure there are plenty of legal ramifications, though...

Lev Vyvanse
02-27-2011, 01:55 PM
Question:
If there is no 2011-2012 football season, do we draft at #2 again at next year's 2012 draft??

No one knows. Those rules would have to be agreed on by the owners.

peacepipe
02-27-2011, 02:36 PM
I'm just saying if the owners did take a stand, It is THEIR league after all isn't it?

I was mostly just curious.

I'm sure there are plenty of legal ramifications, though...They are taking a stand, they are locking out the players. The players didn't start this. yes it is their league but they are going to have to PAY if they want top end talent.

finkus55
02-27-2011, 03:38 PM
I don't post here much (just lurk around daily)....but this topic brought up a question I have had for awhile now. It seems like the biggest holdup in all of the negotiations is the extra $1 billion that the owners want out of the revenue pie. From what I understand, the NFLPA is ok with that as long as they can prove that they NEED the money (opening their books).

Why don't the owners just open their books to justify their need for the money.......by not doing so essentially tells me they are being greedy and have no real need for this money, they just want it to get richer. Am I missing something here?

Kaylore
02-27-2011, 03:53 PM
The NFLPA wasn't caught by surprise. they have been actively telling there players to save their money for 2 yrs.
Exactly. They've done really nothing. You think advising a bunch of twenty-something's to be more frugal comes even close to matching a multi-billion dollar insurance policy? And remember the owners lose money in their business, whereas the players lose their very livelihood. And most owners have other business interests they can lean on. The players spend like morons and most are bankrupt within a few years of leaving the league.

I don't post here much (just lurk around daily)....but this topic brought up a question I have had for awhile now. It seems like the biggest holdup in all of the negotiations is the extra $1 billion that the owners want out of the revenue pie. From what I understand, the NFLPA is ok with that as long as they can prove that they NEED the money (opening their books).

Why don't the owners just open their books to justify their need for the money.......by not doing so essentially tells me they are being greedy and have no real need for this money, they just want it to get richer. Am I missing something here?

There's the rub. They won't open their books because they don't want the union to see they don't really "need" another billion.

Cmac821
02-27-2011, 03:54 PM
I think we all could use another billion :thumbs:

That One Guy
02-27-2011, 03:59 PM
Another question as I wasn't around for the last round of lawsuits but how can the NFL be a monopoly when there's other football leagues out there. Does it just come down to anti-trust violations because of collusion?

baja
02-27-2011, 04:33 PM
I don't post here much (just lurk around daily)....but this topic brought up a question I have had for awhile now. It seems like the biggest holdup in all of the negotiations is the extra $1 billion that the owners want out of the revenue pie. From what I understand, the NFLPA is ok with that as long as they can prove that they NEED the money (opening their books).

Why don't the owners just open their books to justify their need for the money.......by not doing so essentially tells me they are being greedy and have no real need for this money, they just want it to get richer. Am I missing something here?

I have simular thoughts.

The position is incriminating. There is only one valid reason to not open the books and that is because it does not support their position.

baja
02-27-2011, 04:38 PM
This might be a silly question. I haven't really been keeping up-- But, what if the owners just fill up their teams with players that aren't in the NFL at a rate of pay that is more moderate?

Don't respect the contracts to the NFL players (not guaranteed anyway, right?) and just hire/fill their teams up with available talent. The talent pool of football players today is leap and bounds above what it has ever been in the past. And in this economy, there are probably talented player that jump at the chance to make "only" a few million.

It would be a re-alligning and a re-setting of the scales. Some would say a more proper allignment, some would say not.

I know it is a drastic measure, but what is really stopping it from happening?

I have been wondering this too. Kinda like Reagan did with the traffic controllers.

peacepipe
02-27-2011, 05:57 PM
I don't post here much (just lurk around daily)....but this topic brought up a question I have had for awhile now. It seems like the biggest holdup in all of the negotiations is the extra $1 billion that the owners want out of the revenue pie. From what I understand, the NFLPA is ok with that as long as they can prove that they NEED the money (opening their books).

Why don't the owners just open their books to justify their need for the money.......by not doing so essentially tells me they are being greedy and have no real need for this money, they just want it to get richer. Am I missing something here?they're probably making more money than they're letting on.

ColoradoDarin
02-27-2011, 07:14 PM
I have been wondering this too. Kinda like Reagan did with the traffic controllers.

Yeah, just like the air traffic controllers.... ::)

On August 3, 1981 the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In doing so, the union violated a law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.[4] Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited.

So what Federal statue would the players strike violate? Oh wait, this would be a lockout, so no players would even strike. I'm pretty sure you can't lockout and then replace. The union would have to strike (like they did in 1987) to be replaced with scabs.

Otherwise, they're exactly the same!

baja
02-27-2011, 07:18 PM
Yeah, just like the air traffic controllers.... ::)



So what Federal statue would the players strike violate? Oh wait, this would be a lockout, so no players would even strike. I'm pretty sure you can't lockout and then replace. The union would have to strike (like they did in 1987) to be replaced with scabs.

Otherwise, they're exactly the same!

The similarity is in the fact the seemingly irreplaceable were easily replaced but prattle on about whatever.......

Garcia Bronco
02-28-2011, 06:18 AM
there is one thing many of you forget...the owners own the league; not the players.

peacepipe
02-28-2011, 07:41 AM
there is one thing many of you forget...the owners own the league; not the players.

so.

bronclvr
02-28-2011, 08:02 AM
The position is incriminating. There is only one valid reason to not open the books and that is because it does not support their position.

Bullcrap-if you owned a Business and the employee's came to you and asked to see your P & L/Balance Sheet, would YOU do it? I would not, I would tell them to kiss my butt-that is none of their Business. If they were Owners, or had a vested interest, it would be different.

These guys know that they are putting themselves in harm's way, and no one is holding a Gun to their head-either you want to play (and make Millions), take the chance of a possible career-ending injury, or or you don't-no one is forcing you. The Owner's, on the other hand, are on the hook for the payments due to run an NFL franchise-it is not the same thing, and the Players are at a disadvantage (as it should be)-you don't want the Inmates running the Asylum-

bronclvr
02-28-2011, 09:48 AM
Eagles’ Brandon Graham says broke teammate asked for $100K loanPosted by Michael David Smith on February 28, 2011, 12:40 PM EST

Can NFL players manage their money well enough to make it through a lengthy work stoppage and afford to pay their bills? Or will the players’ union buckle quickly to the owners’ demands because union members simply can’t afford to miss any paychecks?

That’s one of the fundamental questions as the owners and the players continue their negotiations toward a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. And a story told by one NFL player suggests that the players simply aren’t prepared to play hardball with the owners.

Eagles linebacker Brandon Graham tells Philadelphia Sports Daily that he has had teammates come to him and say they’re broke, asking for loans of as much as $100,000.

“They try not to make it awkward. They’ll come to you like they’re joking, but they’re serious. They’re trying to feel you out, to see what you’ll say,” Graham said.

Graham says that if his teammates can’t manage their own money, there’s no way he’s lending them any of his money.

“I’ll be like, ‘What are you going to do with it, other than blow it?’ I don’t want to be beefing with guys on my team because they owe me money,” Graham said.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/28/eagles-brandon-graham-says-broke-teammate-asked-for-100k-loan/

Doesn't look like this will take long-

ColoradoDarin
02-28-2011, 10:11 AM
Martell: "Look, I know that five million a
year sounds like a lot of money.
But I gotta pay ten percent to my
agent, five percent to my lawyer,
plus alimony, child support --"

Wilson: "You got any idea what insurance on
a Ferrari costs, motherfu -- !"

-The Replacements

Kaylore
02-28-2011, 10:15 AM
Can NFL players manage their money well enough to make it through a lengthy work stoppage and afford to pay their bills?
No.

Or will the players’ union buckle quickly to the owners’ demands because union members simply can’t afford to miss any paychecks?
Yes. This is why the owners don't give a crap, because they know they can outlast the union. Union can certify and sue for rights to work, but the NFL owners lawyers will stir the pot and draw it out ultimately forcing the players to dig into their personal savings and union payments. They'll utterly collapse.



“They try not to make it awkward. They’ll come to you like they’re joking, but they’re serious. They’re trying to feel you out, to see what you’ll say,” Graham said.

Graham says that if his teammates can’t manage their own money, there’s no way he’s lending them any of his money.

“I’ll be like, ‘What are you going to do with it, other than blow it?’ I don’t want to be beefing with guys on my team because they owe me money,” Graham said.


This will be very interesting once it gets to this. How will this borrowing amongst teammates affect team chemistry, I wonder?

bronclvr
02-28-2011, 10:39 AM
Martell: "Look, I know that five million a
year sounds like a lot of money.
But I gotta pay ten percent to my
agent, five percent to my lawyer,
plus alimony, child support --"

Wilson: "You got any idea what insurance on
a Ferrari costs, motherfu -- !"

-The Replacements

I love that Movie!

lostknight
02-28-2011, 10:58 AM
I don't post here much (just lurk around daily)....but this topic brought up a question I have had for awhile now. It seems like the biggest holdup in all of the negotiations is the extra $1 billion that the owners want out of the revenue pie. From what I understand, the NFLPA is ok with that as long as they can prove that they NEED the money (opening their books).


a) Unions have a long history of taking access to the book, and using it to the point of maximum leverage - in particular several airlines died in the 80s because of unions who were granted access to the book, understood where the pain points where, and shafted the airline.

b) The owners own the leauge. Unless they are publically owned, they are under no legal requirements to disclose the margin. Furthermore, doing so hurts the re-sale ability of teams dramatically. Go look at It's All Over Fat Man's fantastic breakdown of the numbers.

by not doing so essentially tells me they are being greedy and have no real need for this money, they just want it to get richer. Am I missing something here?

Everyone's greedy here. Players want the bulk of revenue, despite the fact that they are not taking the financial risk of these contracts. Owners want the bulk of revenue, despite the fact that they are ownership. Unions would want nothing more then a luxury tax system with a soft cap and 100% guaranteed contracts. Football owners see the havoc that this has done to MLB.

Unions were introduced to protect people in manual labor low paying jobs. To protect them from exploitation. High cost unions exist for a single purpose, to get more for the players, and to propagate the union.

lostknight
02-28-2011, 10:59 AM
The unions already talking about decertifying. That alone tells you what the situation is like. They are willing to give up collective bargaining in favor of more from owners.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-01-2011, 03:35 PM
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
@SI_JimTrotter (http://twitter.com/SI_JimTrotter): BREAKING NEWS: Doty reverses special master Burbank. "Holds that the NFL breached the SSA as to those (TV) contracts."<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
League does not have access to $4 billion in TV money.<o:p></o:p>

That One Guy
03-01-2011, 04:05 PM
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
@SI_JimTrotter (http://twitter.com/SI_JimTrotter): BREAKING NEWS: Doty reverses special master Burbank. "Holds that the NFL breached the SSA as to those (TV) contracts."<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
League does not have access to $4 billion in TV money.<o:p></o:p>

Wow, huge reversal. You have to think that's gonna get appealed now, though.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-01-2011, 04:25 PM
Wow, huge reversal. You have to think that's gonna get appealed now, though.

For sure...but if this holds, no way we're gonna miss games.

When two kids fight over a toy, the toy should be taken away until they make nice

Chris
03-01-2011, 05:16 PM
I'm more concerned about the future health of the league than I am about missing games. I don't want this to turn into mlb or the nba. I take massive issue with those leagues.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
03-01-2011, 05:49 PM
isnt this all about owners wanting to go to 18 games while the players whom i agree with on this point want only the current 16.mho regular season should start first sunday in sept

schaaf
03-01-2011, 09:23 PM
I think it's more about dividing the $9 Billion in Revenue.

IMO lengthening the season is the second biggest topic.

maven
03-01-2011, 09:25 PM
Just don't turn the ****ING league into the MLB or NBA.

Thanks

bfoflcommish
03-02-2011, 06:51 AM
Just don't turn the ****ING league into the MLB or NBA.

Thanks

said the person with Lebron in his avy who is the biggest reason the NBA is the way it is.