[SHpuntik]

I heard it a little differently...

The proposal includes several concessions the NFLPA was aiming for initially, including a split of the economic difference between the two sides, a rookie wage scale and a commitment that an 18-game schedule won't occur until after the 2012 season at the earliest.

• A rookie wage scale based on the Union's proposal, which pays 2nd-7th round picks more or the same while repurposing money currently given to first-round picks back to veterans and for benefits.
• A $1 million guarantee for players the year after they get hurt.
• A decrease in number of OTA practices and practice time and additional days off.
• A commitment that an 18-game season would not occur until 2012 and only via agreement by both sides.
• An additional $82 million of owner funding that would go towards improved benefits.
• Retired players can opt into the player medical plan for life.
• Third-party arbitrators for drug and suspension cases.
• Improvements in Mackey Plan and others.
• A minimum salary cap figure of 90 percent of the cap. (Sidenote: Hey Clown, SEE...there's that Cap i toldja about).

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/3/1...osal-nflpa-cba

[AutocadOemM]

I heard it a little differently...

You mean the two sides aren't telling the same story? I'm shocked.

[bloriMal]

You mean the two sides aren't telling the same story? I'm shocked.

There was a decent offer- one that the union wanted. And they chose to ignore it and walk.

PR Game on.....

[glazgoR@]

There was a decent offer- one that the union wanted. And they chose to ignore it and walk.

PR Game on.....

The owner's met all of the players demands? I must have missed that report.

[Vobomei]

The owner's met all of the players demands? I must have missed that report.

They met quite a few that nobody expected them to.

....then the players decided to pull the PR maneuver and ask for 10 years of audited books. Prolly think they can win in the court of public opinion. They'll file their charges in MN; owners will file their lawsuit in IN.

Employees don't have a right to see what it is the employer makes outside of what the employee is paid.

Personally, i think that while this might initially play poorly for the owners, the public will see through the charade and see that this just might be a tactic by the players' rep to get even more money off of things the owners do that the players aren't even involved in.

[soipguibbom]

They met quite a few that nobody expected them to.

....then the players decided to pull the PR maneuver and ask for 10 years of audited books. Prolly think they can win in the court of public opinion. They'll file their charges in MN; owners will file their lawsuit in IN.

Employees don't have a right to see what it is the employer makes outside of what the employee is paid.

Personally, i think that while this might initially play poorly for the owners, the public will see through the charade and see that this just might be a tactic by the players' rep to get even more money off of things the owners do that the players aren't even involved in.

You keep acting like the owners have given the players the full disclosure that they have been asking for when, as far as all the reports I've seen, the owners aren't willing to provide that. Why would that be? Probably because they are full of shit. Talk about a charade. You should be talking about the TV deals that the owners negotiated. You know, the ones where they took less money because they included specific language that would ensure they get paid during a lockout.

And this isn't your regular old employer/employee relationship so acting like it is, is a joke.

[Sillaycheg]

Some teams do better than others. If the players knew which teams were the most profitable, that's where they'd try to sign as free agents.

The NFLPA was fine with having the team's names redacted.

The owners were not fine with the union seeing things like Mike Brown's "GM salary" or payments to family members written off as salary expenses.

[Z3s9vQZj]

If things were to work out and we had a season, there would be some sort of cap. Right now there's no season, so no cap.

See how that works???
(Oh i'm sorry, you don't).

Actually, when the league imposes a lockout, and the players sue, an injuction would be put in place and the league would operate under the current terms.

Which means no salary cap.

Unless an agreement is reached. Of course, either way, there should be football.

I'd just be afraid of what may happen if the players follow the litigation through to the very end.

[RorieSorNearop]

They met quite a few that nobody expected them to.

....then the players decided to pull the PR maneuver and ask for 10 years of audited books. Prolly think they can win in the court of public opinion. They'll file their charges in MN; owners will file their lawsuit in IN.

Employees don't have a right to see what it is the employer makes outside of what the employee is paid.

Personally, i think that while this might initially play poorly for the owners, the public will see through the charade and see that this just might be a tactic by the players' rep to get even more money off of things the owners do that the players aren't even involved in.

It really doesn't matter what the public thinks about it.

[BurdenRobert]

You keep acting like the owners have given the players the full disclosure that they have been asking for when, as far as all the reports I've seen, the owners aren't willing to provide that. Why would that be? Probably because they are full of shit. Talk about a charade. You should be talking about the TV deals that the owners negotiated. You know, the ones where they took less money because they included specific language that would ensure they get paid during a lockout.

And this isn't your regular old employer/employee relationship so acting like it is, is a joke.

The players are employees. Deal with it.

They were- until recently- not unlike the local city police or firemen versus the city council in pay negotiations and pensions, etc.

As far as what the owners negotiated with the TV stations, that's the owners' business. The players are making their money from teams with smarter businessmen than they are.

The owners get paid during the lockout, great. They negotiated a great deal.

Players don't give the owners part of their endorsement deals. Owners aren't asking to see *their* financials and see how much they waste at strip clubs and t!tty bars. Why??? None of the owners' business.

Just like the TV deals and ads and billboards at stadiums aren't any of the players' beeswax.

[GueseVekdet]

It really doesn't matter what the public thinks about it.

Which is why the players chose to walk out and play this out in the court of public opinion????

Decertifying the union was a major step. They had that ad- the 'Let 'em Play' ad- in the can before the Superbowl even kicked off.

I think they wanted to see what else they could get seeing as the owners met a lot of their demands as it was.

[xiaoselangone]

The players are employees. Deal with it.

They were- until recently- not unlike the local city police or firemen versus the city council in pay negotiations and pensions, etc.

As far as what the owners negotiated with the TV stations, that's the owners' business. The players are making their money from teams with smarter businessmen than they are.

The owners get paid during the lockout, great. They negotiated a great deal.

Players don't give the owners part of their endorsement deals. Owners aren't asking to see *their* financials and see how much they waste at strip clubs and t!tty bars. Why??? None of the owners' business.

Just like the TV deals aren't any of the players' beeswax.

This is untrue, and a violation of the CBA, and was ruled as such in the courts.

It was the owner's responsibility to maximize the profits that they shared with the players, and by taking less overall money in order to ensure payments while the players were not getting paid, the owners fell short in those respects.

[Dabdklwu]

Which is why the players chose to walk out and play this out in the court of public opinion????

Decertifying the union was a major step. They had that ad- the 'Let 'em Play' ad- in the can before the Superbowl even kicked off.

I think they wanted to see what else they could get seeing as the owners met a lot of their demands as it was.

They are playing it out in the court of law. The public has nothing to do with it at all. The public isn't going to negotiate a CBA. But the courts can put a lot of pressure on the league via anti-trust laws.

And the players really didn't have any demands other than, "show us why you want to take money away from us".

The owners were the ones with demands. The players were happy with status quo.

[Vjwkvkoy]

They are playing it out in the court of law. The public has nothing to do with it at all. The public isn't going to negotiate a CBA. But the courts can put a lot of pressure on the league via anti-trust laws.

And the players really didn't have any demands other than, "show us why you want to take money away from us".

The owners were the ones with demands. The players were happy with status quo.

They're now hoping to play it out there.

The ad they produced- and they made no secret of it- was done for what reason???

Ahh yes, to pander to the public.

And BS to your statement that the players were happy with the status quo.

Utter f*king BS.

[Mymnnarry]

The players are employees. Deal with it.

They were- until recently- not unlike the local city police or firemen versus the city council in pay negotiations and pensions, etc.

As far as what the owners negotiated with the TV stations, that's the owners' business. The players are making their money from teams with smarter businessmen than they are.

The owners get paid during the lockout, great. They negotiated a great deal.

Players don't give the owners part of their endorsement deals. Owners aren't asking to see *their* financials and see how much they waste at strip clubs and t!tty bars. Why??? None of the owners' business.

Just like the TV deals and ads and billboards at stadiums aren't any of the players' beeswax.

You realize that there is a huge difference between police and firemen or teachers for that matter and NFL owners and players right? I doubt you'll figure out the difference, but I'd be interested in seeing you try.

And as Mad already pointed out, a judge has determined that the owners did not negotiate in good faith and they can't collect the money they set aside for the lockout. So yes, that is part of the deal.

[jstizzle]

This is untrue, and a violation of the CBA, and was ruled as such in the courts.

It was the owner's responsibility to maximize the profits that they shared with the players, and by taking less overall money in order to ensure payments while the players were not getting paid, the owners fell short in those respects.

The owners made a geat deal. Good for them.

Maybe when you become that great producer- or podcaster or whatever it is you're taking classes for- you'll finally come around and see who takes the risk and who's a$$ is one the line when pay day comes rolling around.

You might also wanna come clean and admit that a union's job is to get into an owner/employers' pocket. Get in there as deep and as far as they can.

[KuznehikVasaN]

The owners made a geat deal. Good for them.

Maybe when you become that great producer- or podcaster or whatever it is you're taking classes for- you'll finally come around and see who takes the risk and who's a$$ is one the line when pay day comes rolling around.

You might also wanna come clean and admit that a union's job is to get into an owner/employers' pocket. Get in there as deep and as far as they can.

God you can be dense. The owners signed a contract and then violated that contract. That's *not* good for them. That's pretty much why things are where they are right now.

At this point now, the players are making their power play, because the leverage shifts to them. The owners done messed up, and they know it, otherwise they wouldn't have made any concessions in their most recent offer.

But the good news is, we should have football as scheduled.

[nicktender]

The owners made a geat deal. Good for them.

Maybe when you become that great producer- or podcaster or whatever it is you're taking classes for- you'll finally come around and see who takes the risk and who's a$$ is one the line when pay day comes rolling around.

You might also wanna come clean and admit that a union's job is to get into an owner/employers' pocket. Get in there as deep and as far as they can.

Actually, it was a bad deal and that's the problem. They took LESS total money than they should have just so they would have revenue during a lockout so they could do their best to break the union. That was their plan all along. But yeah, this is all on the players.

[casinobonuswer]

They're now hoping to play it out there.

The ad they produced- and they made no secret of it- was done for what reason???

Ahh yes, to pander to the public.

And BS to your statement that the players were happy with the status quo.

Utter f*king BS.

The players didn't opt out of the deal. The players made an offer to the league that was a 50/50 split counting the billion the owners skimmed off the top. Which amounted to..wait for it...the same percentage that they were already receiving.

These aren't hidden things, Straw. They are all right out there for you to read about.


As for the PR move...Yes, when the league had all the leverage, and was set to impose a lockout with the goal of reducing salaries, then the union went the PR route. Things changed since then. The league lost the lockout insurance case, and the union gained a little leverage.

Now the union has put forth a disclaimer of interest, to further gain leverage for the players against the league. But now, it's just the players, the league, and the courts. The owners will likely settle, because, based on the American Needle case, they stand to lose far more than the players.


Not once was there ever talk of the players striking, or asking for MORE money. So I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the players were not happy with the status quo.

[CiccoineFed]

“I think what really happened is in 2006 we got such a great deal,” NFLPA president Kevin Mawae told Sirius Mad Dog Radio.