Negotiation Tactics

[Verdict]

As an attorney, the majority of what I do on a daily basis is problem solving, and negotiating settlements in many different kinds of cases. There are several negotiating tactics than can be employed in negotiating a settlement of a case or dispute.

Some parties ask for the moon, and then retreat as negotiations go on, and approach something the parties can live with. A second school of thought is to ask for slightly more than you want and then hold your ground and move very grudgingly, if at all.

The problem with shooting for the moon (I think the players association has taken this approach) is that unless that you show that you are willing to move toward the middle ground at a fairly good pace, then you become viewed as unreasonable, and the other side usually becomes more firmly entrenched and less willing to concede anything. If neither side flinches, then things reach an impasse quickly.

The biggest problem with this approach is that "usually" one side or the other has a stronger position than the other, and when the weaker side flinches, it is all over but the crying, and the weaker side will usually get less than than they would if they had built a bridge in negotiations.

This form of negotiating is more of a "give me what I want or I am going to kill a hostage" scenario. The problem with this type of negotiation is if you threaten to kill a hostage, you had better be willing to pull the trigger and shoot him dead, or you are "done" as a credible negotiator.

The more reasonable approach tends to build coalitions better with all sides feeling better about things in the end, and more trust between them after the negotiations are over. The risk in not shooting for more (or in this case the moon) is it gives you little wiggle room to give any at all if the other side doesn't see things your way and the negotiation may fail because you appear inflexible.

Usually somewhere in the middle is best, but since it is an inexact science, you never know exactly where to start, since where you start often has a bearing on how much you get when you settle.

But once again, the parties are seldom in a position of equal bargaining power, and one side usually has an edge. In an employer-employee relationship, usually it is the employer who will have that advantage. The problem of representing a party who is negotiating a position of weakness (usually the employees) is that if you work too hard at trying to get every dollar that could potentially be on the table for too long, the weakness of your bargaining position starts working against you, giving you less than if you had been more reasonable to begin with.

I believe that legally, and practically, the players are in a weaker position than the owners, and as time goes on that weakness will begin to work against them more and more. When you add the disparity of the interests between the various tiers of players, it is a recipe for disaster.

I think that the players will get more in the long run if their demands become more reasonable. In fact, one might argue that it is in the players' best interests to send a different negotiator to the table and switch up their negotiating tactics from a "kill a hostage mode" to more of a coalition building style.

If they stick with their current negotiating team, and stance, they had better be right or it is going to cost them a lot in current dollars and also hamper their efforts in future negotiations, since the faces change, but the issues will probably remain the same.

[CooterBrown]

Excellent post! For those posters who have never been through a mediation, this is a great overview from one who clearly speaks with the voice of experience. Thank you Verdict!

[Everlastingxxx]

Great post. You spoke in terms that the common man like myself can understand.

[CCBoy]

In deed a quality description of the process. As it applies to the players, the low end considerations should tend towards resolving issue on the lowest reasonable level possible. That leaves in tact process for future changes as well as functional mechanism for conducting redress of specifics in issues.

[adbutcher]

So if the players were asking for the moon then what was the owners asking for? Milky way?

[CooterBrown]

So if the players were asking for the moon then what was the owners asking for? Milky way?

I believe both sides started too high and got insulted by the other side's proposal. Egos kicked in and "the hostage is dying."

[CCBoy]

I believe both sides started too high and got insulted by the other side's proposal. Egos kicked in and "the hostage is dying."

Call in the combat lifesavers...

[Hostile]

:post:

[Verdict]

:post:

Thanks Hos.....

[Verdict]

One more thing .... I think that the owners' decision to "lock out" the players was the owners' statement to the players to go ahead and shoot the hostage.

[DallasEast]

Superb post.
But once again, the parties are seldom in a position of equal bargaining power, and one side usually has an edge. In an employer-employee relationship, usually it is the employer who will have that advantage. The problem of representing a party who is negotiating a position of weakness (usually the employees) is that if you work too hard at trying to get every dollar that could potentially be on the table for too long, the weakness of your bargaining position starts working against you, giving you less than if you had been more reasonable to begin with.This is essentially the problem I have been fearful of happening for years, while watching this sport enjoy enormous growth and understanding the greed factor which accompanies it. It's not a popular notion (that's an understatement), but the owners must receive many of their expectations for a new collective bargaining agreement to enjoy minimum or zero labor strife down the line. It is the main reason why they opted out of the old CBA.

Of course, the whole litigation process is mudding up already murky waters as is. Hopefully, the court will push both parties back to the negotiating table to hammer out a real compromise (which may or may not be exactly what either side hoped for).

[DallasEast]

One more thing .... I think that the owners' decision to "lock out" the players was the owners' statement to the players to go ahead and shoot the hostage.
I agree with your assessment, but do you feel that the trade association's decision to decertify helped pull the trigger?

[theogt]

I think you've got it backwards on who took what position. The owners' initial offer was a total shot for the moon. They were never going to get that kind of a deal or anywhere near that deal. The players' initial offer was actually worse than the 2006 deal, but only slightly worse. Obviously we're going to end up with the players accepting a deal that's worse than the 2006 deal, but it's not going to be THAT much worse, so I think the players' initial offer was pretty close to what you sort of refer to as the "hold your ground" offer.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most favorable deal for the owners imaginable and 10 being the 2006 deal, the owners' initial offer was a 1 and the players' initial offer was a 8 or 9.

[SilverStarCowboy]

Usually somewhere in the middle is best, but since it is an inexact science, you never know exactly where to start, since where you start often has a bearing on how much you get when you settle.

But once again, the parties are seldom in a position of equal bargaining power, and one side usually has an edge. In an employer-employee relationship, usually it is the employer who will have that advantage. The problem of representing a party who is negotiating a position of weakness (usually the employees) is that if you work too hard at trying to get every dollar that could potentially be on the table for too long, the weakness of your bargaining position starts working against you, giving you less than if you had been more reasonable to begin with.

I believe that legally, and practically, the players are in a weaker position than the owners, and as time goes on that weakness will begin to work against them more and more. When you add the disparity of the interests between the various tiers of players, it is a recipe for disaster.

I think that the players will get more in the long run if their demands become more reasonable. In fact, one might argue that it is in the players' best interests to send a different negotiator to the table and switch up their negotiating tactics from a "kill a hostage mode" to more of a coalition building style.

If they stick with their current negotiating team, and stance, they had better be right or it is going to cost them a lot in current dollars and also hamper their efforts in future negotiations, since the faces change, but the issues will probably remain the same.


True, the NFLPA is like the Accident Lawyer that says he can get you 30,000 but you end up with 3,000 instead.

[CCBoy]

I think you've got it backwards on who took what position. The owners' initial offer was a total shot for the moon. They were never going to get that kind of a deal or anywhere near that deal. The players' initial offer was actually worse than the 2006 deal, but only slightly worse. Obviously we're going to end up with the players accepting a deal that's worse than the 2006 deal, but it's not going to be THAT much worse, so I think the players' initial offer was pretty close to what you sort of refer to as the "hold your ground" offer.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most favorable deal for the owners imaginable and 10 being the 2006 deal, the owners' initial offer was a 1 and the players' initial offer was a 8 or 9.

You are seeing this as a lawyer...lol. I first see it on basis of public and economic need throughout the country. That's a cruel world for corporations today, and they have to have some, reason based wiggle to adapt to the wild as well.

[SilverStarCowboy]

You are seeing this as a lawyer...lol. I first see it on basis of public and economic need throughout the country. That's a cruel world for corporations today, and they have to have some, reason based wiggle to adapt to the wild as well.


The American economy will thrive easily with or without the NFL.

[CCBoy]

The American economy will thrive easily with or without the NFL.

I believe in our country as well. Based on your statement, I don't think that I would run for President right now...as even Medicare could be a real casualty by associations with party groupings.

I think a mega business such as the NFL is important to this economy right now.

Just bouncing points back at you here...:)

[casmith07]

I think you've got it backwards on who took what position.

Of course you do.

[JIGGYFLY]

When did the players ever ask for anything?

If wanting to work for the exact same provisions of your last previously agreed contract is asking for the moon or threatening to shoot the hostage.

What was asking for a 18% reduction in salary and adding a longer work year by going to a 18 game season.

To even paint the players as asking for to much is showing a clear bias.

[arglebargle]

Very thoughtful observations. Probably inside the ten ring, too.

[Verdict]

When did the players ever ask for anything?

If wanting to work for the exact same provisions of your last previously agreed contract is asking for the moon or threatening to shoot the hostage.

What was asking for a 18% reduction in salary and adding a longer work year by going to a 18 game season.

To even paint the players as asking for to much is showing a clear bias.

It is entirely fair to say that the owners opened this can of worms by opting out of the collective bargaining agreement. However, that option was agreed to by the players and was a part of the collective bargaining agreement.

However, it is not accurate, nor fair, to say that the players have not asked for "anything". It is obvious that they have asked for a number of things the ownership will not agree to, including that the ownership should open up their financial records.

The sad part of this situation is that in the end, the haves like Tom Brady, Payton Manning will probably end up with more, and the rank and file player will probably end up with a bag of magic beans.

[JIGGYFLY]

It is entirely fair to say that the owners opened this can of worms by opting out of the collective bargaining agreement. However, that option was agreed to by the players and was a part of the collective bargaining agreement.

However, it is not accurate, nor fair, to say that the players have not asked for "anything". It is obvious that they have asked for a number of things the ownership will not agree to, including that the ownership should open up their financial records.

The sad part of this situation is that in the end, the haves like Tom Brady, Payton Manning will probably end up with more, and the rank and file player will probably end up with a bag of magic beans.

Your initial premise was that the Players asked for the moon when its very evident that the Owners were the ones who asked for the moon.

How can asking to work under your previous conditions be considered asking for to much.

Your entire premise was good but for some reason you assigned the blame to the players when there is nothing to back that up.

I gave you 2 radical things the owners asked for, what did the players asked for that could be considered asking for the moon?

[theogt]

It is entirely fair to say that the owners opened this can of worms by opting out of the collective bargaining agreement. However, that option was agreed to by the players and was a part of the collective bargaining agreement.

However, it is not accurate, nor fair, to say that the players have not asked for "anything". It is obvious that they have asked for a number of things the ownership will not agree to, including that the ownership should open up their financial records.

The sad part of this situation is that in the end, the haves like Tom Brady, Payton Manning will probably end up with more, and the rank and file player will probably end up with a bag of magic beans.You really couldn't be much more offbase here. The players' initial offer was LESS than a previous agreement that the owners had deemed acceptable. In no way, shape, or form (except in the most warped of minds), does that translate to the players shooting for the moon.

[JIGGYFLY]

You really couldn't be much more offbase here. The players' initial offer was LESS than a previous agreement that the owners had deemed acceptable. In no way, shape, or form (except in the most warped of minds), does that translate to the players shooting for the moon.

Pfffffttt what do you know it was the post of the day :lmao:

[Verdict]

Your initial premise was that the Players asked for the moon when its very evident that the Owners were the ones who asked for the moon.

How can asking to work under your previous conditions be considered asking for to much.

Your entire premise was good but for some reason you assigned the blame to the players when there is nothing to back that up.

I gave you 2 radical things the owners asked for, what did the players asked for that could be considered asking for the moon?

You are missing the point entirely. It is not just about what someone is asking for. How reasonable a party's demands are is part of the issue. However you cannot discount the position of strength or weakness a party is negotiating from.

It is obvious that you side with the players. I get that. I am just analyzing how I view the general scenario. I don't believe that the owners would have opted out of the CBA if they thought they would end up losing out in the long run.

The fact that you side with the players doesn't change the facts. I don't care who wins this battle as long as it doesn't affect me as a season ticket holder of the Cowboys and as a fan. But I believe the owners have the edge as I have previously stated.

[Verdict]

Your initial premise was that the Players asked for the moon when its very evident that the Owners were the ones who asked for the moon.

How can asking to work under your previous conditions be considered asking for to much.

Your entire premise was good but for some reason you assigned the blame to the players when there is nothing to back that up.

I gave you 2 radical things the owners asked for, what did the players asked for that could be considered asking for the moon?

My premise is that the players are asking for more than what their bargaining power will sustain, and that as time goes on, they will probably get less than if their demands had been more reasonable. That's pretty much it in a nut shell.

[Verdict]

You really couldn't be much more offbase here. The players' initial offer was LESS than a previous agreement that the owners had deemed acceptable. In no way, shape, or form (except in the most warped of minds), does that translate to the players shooting for the moon.

I am not sure exactly what the players have offered exactly, but the fact that the owners haven't accepted any offer tells me that the owners believe that the players will ultimately take less than their best offer so far, or that even if the players offer is reasonable that it is not economically feasible for the owners. I am guessing the former, but the latter could conceivably be a factor as well.

That should speak volumes. It is very easy for the players to say they can wait this out, it is another thing entirely for the rank and file to hang in there without pay. Picture Dez Bryant and his lawsuits over luxury items when you think about this scenario, or the tons of bankrupt athletes despite making millions. The smart money is on the players folding at some point.

[JIGGYFLY]

You are missing the point entirely. It is not just about what someone is asking for. How reasonable a party's demands are is part of the issue. However you cannot discount the position of strength or weakness a party is negotiating from.

It is obvious that you side with the players. I get that. I am just analyzing how I view the general scenario. I don't believe that the owners would have opted out of the CBA if they thought they would end up losing out in the long run.

The fact that you side with the players doesn't change the facts. I don't care who wins this battle as long as it doesn't affect me as a season ticket holder of the Cowboys and as a fan. But I believe the owners have the edge as I have previously stated.

No its more like you are changing your point.

I don't side with anyone I just get tired of people framing the argument to fit there particular viewpoint.

Going by what you have said here you think it was reasonable of the owners to ask for another 1 billion off the top and add 2 more games to there work schedule.

Please explain how that was reasonable?

[JIGGYFLY]

My premise is that the players are asking for more than what their bargaining power will sustain, and that as time goes on, they will probably get less than if their demands had been more reasonable. That's pretty much it in a nut shell.

I get it, its your opinion that the players are not bargaining from a position of strength.

That has nothing to do with your analogy of them asking for the moon, which was biased and way off base.

[theogt]

I am not sure exactly what the players have offered exactlyWell, that clears up a lot.

[Verdict]

No its more like you are changing your point.

I don't side with anyone I just get tired of people framing the argument to fit there particular viewpoint.

Going by what you have said here you think it was reasonable of the owners to ask for another 1 billion off the top and add 2 more games to there work schedule.

Please explain how that was reasonable?

Perhaps you are not following my point, but that does not equate to me changing it. It is obvious that you are quite passionate about the issue, but I am not saying either side is "WRONG", I am saying that I believe that the players are going to lose more the longer this goes on for the reasons stated.

If you side with the players, I think you should hope that the players either quietly but forcefully direct Smith to change his negotiating tactics and get a deal done, or replace him with someone who will get a deal done before the rank and file start fragmenting and they lose all bargaining power.

[dezb88]

Perhaps you are not following my point, but that does not equate to me changing it. It is obvious that you are quite passionate about the issue, but I am not saying either side is "WRONG", I am saying that I believe that the players are going to lose more the longer this goes on for the reasons stated.

If you side with the players, I think you should hope that the players either quietly but forcefully direct Smith to change his negotiating tactics and get a deal done, or replace him with someone who will get a deal done before the rank and file start fragmenting and they lose all bargaining power.

spoken like a true lawyer

[Hostile]

spoken like a true lawyerOr a fan with common sense, either one.

[theogt]

Or a fan with common sense, either one.Or a person with a biased opinion. The truth is we don't know what goes on in negotiations. We don't know if Smith is acting unreasonable. He may very well be, I have no idea. The only people that claim that he is are the people who have it made up in their mind regardless of what the facts are. Their conclusion may end up being aligned with what truly happened, but that's only by chance, not by any discerning on their part.

[Verdict]

Or a fan with common sense, either one.


It amazes me sometimes how people let the passion of their position affect their ability to analyze or perceive facts.

[Hostile]

Or a person with a biased opinion. The truth is we don't know what goes on in negotiations. We don't know if Smith is acting unreasonable. He may very well be, I have no idea. The only people that claim that he is are the people who have it made up in their mind regardless of what the facts are. Their conclusion may end up being aligned with what truly happened, but that's only by chance, not by any discerning on their part.He is, and no, I am not guessing.

[Verdict]

Or a person with a biased opinion. The truth is we don't know what goes on in negotiations. We don't know if Smith is acting unreasonable. He may very well be, I have no idea. The only people that claim that he is are the people who have it made up in their mind regardless of what the facts are. Their conclusion may end up being aligned with what truly happened, but that's only by chance, not by any discerning on their part.

Ok, Theogt, let's run with your thought process for a moment. I would agree with you that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. Let's assume that Smith is being entirely reasonable, (which from his posturing doesn't appear to be the case) but we will assume, arguendo, for this exercise that he is being reasonable.

My point is that when you are arguing from a position of weakness, (and I believe he is) part of his job is to "stop the bleeding" and get the best deal you can, because it will only go down hill from there.

What you don't understand is that I'm not bashing Smith for taking an absurd position. That is a common negotiating tactic to get the other side to see the worst case scenario. But I think that it is probably an error in judgment for him to not be more actively pursuing a reasonable conclusion to this controversy.

In order for Smith to be gambling, and be right, he must not only have the upper hand in the position of strength, which I don't believe he has, he also has to be right that the rank and file player will stay the course for as long as it takes. Thats long odds, Theogt

[Verdict]

The benefit of posturing is that it enables the other side to see the worst case scenario. It can be of benefit when the other party is not savvy, or does not understand the power he or she may wield in the negotiating process.

The problem with too much posturing in the instant case is that the owners are keenly aware of their position of strength, and are not frightened by the posturing by the players. Moreover, despite the fact that I think Goodell is an *******, he has played the owners cards very well in this negotiation process.

In reality, I am sure that the owners are a little more fragmented than they appear, but in reality, their cause in this case is pretty aligned. I would bank on keeping 32 owners marching to the same drum than many hundred players. That is just common sense.

[theogt]

He is, and no, I am not guessing.No, it's just a guess. A guess as good as anyone else's.

[DCDave]

My point is that when you are arguing from a position of weakness, (and I believe he is) part of his job is to "stop the bleeding" and get the best deal you can, because it will only go down hill from there.

Undoubtedly true. The players are at the disadvantage. But that has nothing to do with how they've negotiated. That disadvantage is a fact that has existed for years, ever since the league began expressly planning -- that is saving -- for a lockout. It is a fact that existed before the negotiations began. The course that the players chose, litigation, was -- and is -- the only avenue that had even a chance of altering the fundamental dynamic of an uneven playing field in terms of the negotiations. If that option fails, or was not pursued, the only real option the players will have is to accept the owners terms as presented. That's not a negotiation. Its a surrender. Which is why I take your criticism of the players as frankly a little silly. The course they've taken is the only one with even a remote chance of success.

And its a course that will be, in the end, costless. Even if the litigation fails, the owners won't lower their offer. As time goes on, the players will become increasingly disenchanted with their leadership, which will ultimately turn to anger, which will likely lead to surrender. The last thing the NFL wants to do is to turn the player's anger from their own leadership to the other side, which I suspect lowering the offer has a real potential to do. If the players get adequately ticked off at the league, we could actually see a loss of football for an extended period of time and ultimately everybody would get creamed. No, the owners won't lower their offer. The last thing you want to do when dealing with the guy who just killed a hostage is provoke him to a point where he's willing to kill ALL the hostages. Which leads me to the view that, when all is said and done, the players will do no worse than what the league was offering in March. Which makes their litigation gamble, even if unsuccessful, a smart roll of the dice.

[Hostile]

No, it's just a guess. A guess as good as anyone else's.No sir. PM me if you want to know.

[JIGGYFLY]

Perhaps you are not following my point, but that does not equate to me changing it. It is obvious that you are quite passionate about the issue, but I am not saying either side is "WRONG", I am saying that I believe that the players are going to lose more the longer this goes on for the reasons stated.

If you side with the players, I think you should hope that the players either quietly but forcefully direct Smith to change his negotiating tactics and get a deal done, or replace him with someone who will get a deal done before the rank and file start fragmenting and they lose all bargaining power.

Did you think I would need the bold to understand better.

This is totally about your biased statement that the players asked for the moon, for some reason you fail to address that.

There is no rational argument that can be made to support this stance, that is what I responded to and then you brought up unrelated issues to deflect from your initial statement.

Let me make it easy for you what did the players ask for that could be construed as asking for the moon thereby weakening there bargaining position?

[casmith07]

I would just like to add that I am shocked that people are coming in this thread and flaming a guy that does negotiations/mediation for a living as an attorney.

Absolutely floored.

[JIGGYFLY]

Undoubtedly true. The players are at the disadvantage. But that has nothing to do with how they've negotiated. That disadvantage is a fact that has existed for years, ever since the league began expressly planning -- that is saving -- for a lockout. It is a fact that existed before the negotiations began. The course that the players chose, litigation, was -- and is -- the only avenue that had even a chance of altering the fundamental dynamic of an uneven playing field in terms of the negotiations. If that option fails, or was not pursued, the only real option the players will have is to accept the owners terms as presented. That's not a negotiation. Its a surrender. Which is why I take your criticism of the players as frankly a little silly. The course they've taken is the only one with even a remote chance of success.

And its a course that will be, in the end, costless. Even if the litigation fails, the owners won't lower their offer. As time goes on, the players will become increasingly disenchanted with their leadership, which will ultimately turn to anger, which will likely lead to surrender. The last thing the NFL wants to do is to turn the player's anger from their own leadership to the other side, which I suspect lowering the offer has a real potential to do. If the players get adequately ticked off at the league, we could actually see a loss of football for an extended period of time and ultimately everybody would get creamed. No, the owners won't lower their offer. The last thing you want to do when dealing with the guy who just killed a hostage is provoke him to a point where he's willing to kill ALL the hostages. Which leads me to the view that, when all is said and done, the players will do no worse than what the league was offering in March. Which makes their litigation gamble, even if unsuccessful, a smart roll of the dice.

Very well put :bow:

[Verdict]

Undoubtedly true. The players are at the disadvantage. But that has nothing to do with how they've negotiated. That disadvantage is a fact that has existed for years, ever since the league began expressly planning -- that is saving -- for a lockout. It is a fact that existed before the negotiations began. The course that the players chose, litigation, was -- and is -- the only avenue that had even a chance of altering the fundamental dynamic of an uneven playing field in terms of the negotiations. If that option fails, or was not pursued, the only real option the players will have is to accept the owners terms as presented. That's not a negotiation. Its a surrender. Which is why I take your criticism of the players as frankly a little silly. The course they've taken is the only one with even a remote chance of success.

And its a course that will be, in the end, costless. Even if the litigation fails, the owners won't lower their offer. As time goes on, the players will become increasingly disenchanted with their leadership, which will ultimately turn to anger, which will likely lead to surrender. The last thing the NFL wants to do is to turn the player's anger from their own leadership to the other side, which I suspect lowering the offer has a real potential to do. If the players get adequately ticked off at the league, we could actually see a loss of football for an extended period of time and ultimately everybody would get creamed. No, the owners won't lower their offer. The last thing you want to do when dealing with the guy who just killed a hostage is provoke him to a point where he's willing to kill ALL the hostages. Which leads me to the view that, when all is said and done, the players will do no worse than what the league was offering in March. Which makes their litigation gamble, even if unsuccessful, a smart roll of the dice.

You make some valid points, but I disagree that litigation has no downside. Think about this situation in these terms .... The owners signed off on a CBA that they didn't really want to keep football going. It is obvious that it wasn't a sweetheart deal for the owners, because they opted out of it.

This isn't just about this particular event. You correctly point out that whatever the parties do in this situation can affect things going forward. I think Goodell was chosen specifically to represent the owners in this situation. They have a plan. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen, but they are doing this with the express purpose of getting a handle on labor costs.

If the tide turns against the players, it is entirely possible that the owners will use that leverage to push wages down even more to deter future labor issues. Think about it .... if they are able to really stick it to the players ... they might be slightly more inclined to take the next labor deal which is offered instead of refusing it.

[JIGGYFLY]

I would just like to add that I am shocked that people are coming in this thread and flaming a guy that does negotiations/mediation for a living as an attorney.

Absolutely floored.

Wrong is wrong the fact that he has yet to address his initial premise shows he was off base.

[Verdict]

Did you think I would need the bold to understand better.

This is totally about your biased statement that the players asked for the moon, for some reason you fail to address that.

There is no rational argument that can be made to support this stance, that is what I responded to and then you brought up unrelated issues to deflect from your initial statement.

Let me make it easy for you what did the players ask for that could be construed as asking for the moon thereby weakening there bargaining position?

Yes. Actually I did. The portion was bolded to impart specific emphasis on that particular portion of my post. I regret that my emphasis of that particular point didn't help clarify my thoughts on the matter to you, but I have a feeling that you just don't really want to grasp my point, which is ok.

Placing a sentence in italics, bold or caps is a common practice used by a writer (especially in briefs) to impart particular importance to that part. It is seldom perceived as a personal attack on the reader, or does not impart that the reader is so stupid that they could not understand its meaning otherwise.

[theogt]

It is obvious that it wasn't a sweetheart deal for the owners, because they opted out of it.You keep saying things like this, but they're just gross misunderstandings of how negotiations work. If I reject an offer in a negotiation, it does not mean that the offer was not wildly in my favor. It simply means that I think I can get something even better.

[JIGGYFLY]

Yes. Actually I did. The portion was bolded to impart specific emphasis on that particular portion of my post. I regret that my emphasis of that particular point didn't help clarify my thoughts on the matter to you, but I have a feeling that you just don't really want to grasp, my point which is ok.

Placing a sentence in italics, bold or caps is a common practice used by a writer (especially in briefs) to impart particular importance to that part. It is seldom perceived as a personal attack on the reader, or does not impart that the reader is so stupid that they could not understand its meaning otherwise.

What about this addresses the issue of asking for the moon?

"If you side with the players, I think you should hope that the players either quietly but forcefully direct Smith to change his negotiating tactics and get a deal done, or replace him with someone who will get a deal done before the rank and file start fragmenting and they lose all bargaining power."

I know what putting a sentence in bold means, why you felt the need to do that here still escapes me, but that's neither here nor there.

I am still waiting to here what outrages thing the players asked for.

[Outlaw Heroes]

I am still waiting to here what outrages thing the players asked for.

It's arguably outrageous to ask for guaranteed downside protection (i.e. a hard salary cap, regardless of whether revenues fall short of projections) while at the same time insisting on sharing in the upside (in the form of a "true up" in the event that revenues exceed projections).

As it happens, the owners seem prepared to entertain this request, which to some extent legitimizes the request. Personally, I find that somewhat charitable. Because, as I say, the request could easily be seen as outrageous.

[Hostile]

What about this addresses the issue of asking for the moon?

"If you side with the players, I think you should hope that the players either quietly but forcefully direct Smith to change his negotiating tactics and get a deal done, or replace him with someone who will get a deal done before the rank and file start fragmenting and they lose all bargaining power."

I know what putting a sentence in bold means, why you felt the need to do that here still escapes me, but that's neither here nor there.

I am still waiting to here what outrages thing the players asked for.The focus of his point that seems to be escaping you. Whether the deal is outrageous or not, he's saying get a deal done before permanent damage happens.

[Verdict]

You keep saying this like this, but they're just gross misunderstandings of how negotiations work. If I reject an offer in a negotiation, it does not mean that the offer was not wildly in my favor. It simply means that I think I can get something even better.

I'm pretty sure I understand how negotiations work. I think I have at least a rudimentary grasp on them after reading the posts in this thread. I'm trying to listen to you guys and learn as much about it as possible. :)

Your last post has some validity and accuracy as well, but I think that you have missed the point of this thread. I know you are passionate about your position, and I applaud that fact, but I think that it might be coloring your glasses just a little, My Friend.

[Hostile]

It's arguably outrageous to ask for guaranteed downside protection (i.e. a hard salary cap, regardless of whether revenues fall short of projections) while at the same time insisting on sharing in the upside (in the form of a "true up" in the event that revenues exceed projections).

As it happens, the owners seem prepared to entertain this request, which to some extent legitimizes the request. Personally, I find that somewhat charitable. Because, as I say, the request could easily be seen as outrageous.
Don't forget demands to open the books. I consider that beyond outrageous and don't believe any person in here who owned a business would agree to do that. Especially when it means your competitors could also see your books.

[Hostile]

I'm pretty sure I understand how negotiations work. I think I have at least a rudimentary grasp on them after reading the posts in this thread. I'm trying to listen to you guys and learn as much about it as possible. :)

Your last post has some validity and accuracy as well, but I think that you have missed the point of this thread. I know you are passionate about your position, and I applaud that fact, but I think that it might be coloring your glasses just a little, My Friend.Very tongue in cheek Counselor.

[Verdict]

What about this addresses the issue of asking for the moon?

"If you side with the players, I think you should hope that the players either quietly but forcefully direct Smith to change his negotiating tactics and get a deal done, or replace him with someone who will get a deal done before the rank and file start fragmenting and they lose all bargaining power."

I know what putting a sentence in bold means, why you felt the need to do that here still escapes me, but that's neither here nor there.

I am still waiting to here what outrages thing the players asked for.

I told you why I did it, so why does it escape you?

[theogt]

It's arguably outrageous to ask for guaranteed downside protection (i.e. a hard salary cap, regardless of whether revenues fall short of projections) while at the same time insisting on sharing in the upside (in the form of a "true up" in the event that revenues exceed projections).

As it happens, the owners seem prepared to entertain this request, which to some extent legitimizes the request. Personally, I find that somewhat charitable. Because, as I say, the request could easily be seen as outrageous.It would only be outrageous if there were a chance of a downside. Whether they do a pegged cap or a floating cap, the purpose is to get to a certain %, regardless of what revenue is. This isn't some risky asset here where there's a real risk of downside; it's a long-term business with long-term steady revenue growth.

[Outlaw Heroes]

You keep saying things like this, but they're just gross misunderstandings of how negotiations work. If I reject an offer in a negotiation, it does not mean that the offer was not wildly in my favor. It simply means that I think I can get something even better.

Maybe. There was, however, significant risk (which has now been largely realized) in exercising the opt-out: namely, a potentially lengthy labor disruption and exposure to antitrust liability. So it strikes me as doubtful that the owners exercised the right, notwithstanding that they viewed the 2006 CBA as "wildly in [their] favor". Particularly given that many observers expressed the view early on that the 2006 CBA was a great deal for the players.

[Verdict]

Very tongue in cheek Counselor.

I feel like I am driving by a really bad car wreck, or watching Jerry Springer. I feel totally ashamed for continuing to watch this unfold.

[theogt]

Don't forget demands to open the books. I consider that beyond outrageous and don't believe any person in here who owned a business would agree to do that. Especially when it means your competitors could also see your books.In large (multi-billion dollar) deals, it's a standard part of diligence. Nothing outrageous at all. Just business as usual.

[Outlaw Heroes]

It would only be outrageous if there were a chance of a downside. Whether they do a pegged cap or a floating cap, the purpose is to get to a certain %, regardless of what revenue is. This isn't some risky asset here where there's a real risk of downside; it's a long-term business with long-term steady revenue growth.

Fair enough. But we're talking about projections here. Revenues could grow and still fall short of projections. In such circumstances, the owners bear the full cost of the inaccuracy in the forecast. Which would be completely unobjectionable if they also stood to exclusively benefit from any inaccuracy to the upside.

[theogt]

I'm pretty sure I understand how negotiations work.Perhaps you do and perhaps in your zeal you're misstating your thoughts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

[theogt]

Fair enough. But we're talking about projections here. Revenues could grow and still fall short of projections. In such circumstances, the owners bear the full cost of the inaccuracy in the forecast. Which would be completely unobjectionable if they also stood to exclusively benefit from any inaccuracy to the upside.I believe the idea is to set the peg at a point where the parties are comfortable it is below the most conservative of forecasts and the real negotiation point is what % of the "upside" (I use that loosely, since upside is baked in) is going to be split between players and owners.

[Verdict]

Perhaps you do and perhaps in your zeal you're misstating your thoughts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

Thank you. I will be more succinct next time, just for you. :)

[Outlaw Heroes]

In large (multi-billion dollar) deals, it's a standard part of diligence. Nothing outrageous at all. Just business as usual.

Leaving aside that in large (multi-billion dollar) deals, the financials are almost always a matter of public record (though I admit the an acquiror typically gets access to financial information that go beyond the financials, including management forecasts and models), the players aren't acquiring a business here.

[Outlaw Heroes]

I believe the idea is to set the peg at a point where the parties are comfortable it is below the most conservative of forecasts and the real negotiation point is what % of the "upside" (I use that loosely, since upside is baked in) is going to be split between players and owners.

I'm sure the owners would be comfortable with using a conservative forecast to peg the guaranteed salary. The players, undoubtedly, will want a more aggressive forecast used since it impacts their base case.

[theogt]

Leaving aside that in large (multi-billion dollar) deals, the financials are almost always a matter of public record (though I admit the an acquiror typically gets access to financial information that go beyond the financials, including management forecasts and models), the players aren't acquiring a business here.Whether private or public, historical and projected financials are made available with ease. Nothing odd about that.

They're negotiating to divvy up a % of revenue of a business. It's not an equity interest, you're right, but it's not far from it. Regardless, it wasn't the players that the owners didn't want to see the books -- it was the other owners.

[Verdict]

I'm sure the owners would be comfortable with using a conservative forecast to peg the guaranteed salary. The players, undoubtedly, will want a more aggressive forecast used since it impacts their base case.


You are probably right, but I am also pretty sure that it has very little to do with the point of this thread.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Regardless, it wasn't the players that the owners didn't want to see the books -- it was the other owners.

I think that's largely true.

[theogt]

I'm sure the owners would be comfortable with using a conservative forecast to peg the guaranteed salary. The players, undoubtedly, will want a more aggressive forecast used since it impacts their base case.It would be in their interest to push for a deal in which there's a potential for downside, sure, but I don't think that's on the table. Who knows, though.

[Outlaw Heroes]

You are probably right, but I am also pretty sure that it has very little to do with the point of this thread.

You've lost me. It has everything to do with the direction that a certain strand of this thread has taken.

1. JIGGYFLY asked you for an example of an outrageous request by the players.

2. I offered, as a potential example, the pegged cap, with guaranteed downside protection, coupled with the true-up, allowing for sharing in the upside.

3. After a bit of back and forth between theo and I, he suggested that the guaranteed downside protection was not a big deal, since they would use conservative projections to peg the cap.

4. I responded with the post you quoted.

I have to assume that you "lost the thread", as it were, since otherwise your post makes no sense (and, to be honest, verges on being obnoxious).

[Verdict]

You've lost me. It has everything to do with the direction that a certain strand of this thread has taken.

1. JIGGYFLY asked you for an example of an outrageous request by the players.

2. I offered, as a potential example, the pegged cap, with guaranteed downside protection, coupled with the true-up, allowing for sharing in the upside.

3. After a bit of back and forth between theo and I, he suggested that the guaranteed downside protection was not a big deal, since they would use conservative projections to peg the cap.

4. I responded with the post you quoted.

I have to assume that you "lost the thread", as it were, since otherwise your post makes no sense (and, to be honest, verges on being obnoxious).


I think I will just stand on what I have previously stated. I have tried to convey my thoughts in several different ways. If my intended meaning was lost among the many enlightened posts in this thread, it will just have to remain lost. :D

[Angus]

Stay with it Verdict. I'm a lawyer too, and you know what you're talking about.

For the rest of you, lawyers are trained to be able to represent either side. Their evaluation of tactics is objective.

:)

[Hostile]

Stay with it Verdict. I'm a lawyer too, and you know what you're talking about.

For the rest of you, lawyers are trained to be able to represent either side. Their evaluation of tactics is objective.

:)
All of you guys have been marvelous in these threads. I appreciate it so much it's not funny.

[SkinsFan28]

Did you think I would need the bold to understand better.

This is totally about your biased statement that the players asked for the moon, for some reason you fail to address that.

There is no rational argument that can be made to support this stance, that is what I responded to and then you brought up unrelated issues to deflect from your initial statement.

Let me make it easy for you what did the players ask for that could be construed as asking for the moon thereby weakening there bargaining position?
If you look at hearts, when you shoot the moon, you get all 26 points, thus getting none, and giving your opponents each 26. HOWEVER, if you fail by even 1 point, you get stuck with 25, while one of the other players takes 1.

I say this, because I think that concept of shooting the moon explains what Verdict had in mind. When I first read his OP, I felt kinda the same as what you have expressed. But Verdict is not saying that the players pushed for wonderful new benefits, merely that their "hand" doesn't have that final winner to get the 26th point, thus they will end up taking a much worse loss. Clearly the players felt that they had the hand to shoot, and going up until this last card, they were doing pretty good, TV Contracts lawsuit is going their way, Judge Nelson said everything they wanted. Right now, the question is whether they will have the courage to eat the queen of spades (go through with a full true forever so be it - decertification) or take their losses, and accept a new, less favorable CBA.

Back on point, to shoot the moon here means make a hard and fast go for it all and don't back down type attitude, and hope you have the cards to win it all.

Let's look at it from the point of if litigation had worked, or the 8th DCoA does support Judge Nelson. Then their shoot the moon strategy will have worked, because the owners will probably be back at the table with an offer very similar to the 2006 CBA, and plus the player may get damages awarded. Thus they would have shot the moon (using the hearts analogy) .

[CowboySwagger]

I have been gone for awhile, too long.

I had a vague understanding on whats going on with the NFL.

But honestly, after reading this thread, even with the misunderstandings, and clearifications, light sarcasm, passionate opinions, and professional attitudes.

I am a much better person for reading and obsorbing many different opinions and view points.

Thank you, to members for your articulate, expressive, and simple explanations and CowboyZone for your wonderful, colorful, and intellegent members.

I am not even worried if football does not happen because this forum will still educate, and thouroughly entertain me, and for that, many Thank You's to all that display there passion and intellegence.

[mmillman]

"There’s not a single, solitary owner suffering during this lockout. The lockout, remember, is being conducted because the owners want a larger profit margin. That’s a fancy way of saying they’re not making enough money.
Trust me, they aren’t flying commercial. And they aren’t staying at Best Western (http://topics.dallasnews.com/topic/Best_Western) hotels throughout the country.
But throughout the league, owners are docking their employees 10-25 percent of their salaries. The Lions just announced two-week furloughs. The Raiders want their employees to help sell tickets for a season no one knows will begin to stave off salary cuts.
Whatever.
Every NFL owner is a multimillionaire. Many have several hundred million. None are hurting financially.
Those making their employees pay the price for their desire to make more money should be criminal."

[peplaw06]

I believe both sides started too high and got insulted by the other side's proposal. Egos kicked in and "the hostage is dying."
Careful... I got accused of being too imaginative by saying certain people got insulted.
I would just like to add that I am shocked that people are coming in this thread and flaming a guy that does negotiations/mediation for a living as an attorney.

Absolutely floored.seriously? Its been happening for months.

[DallasEast]

Every NFL owner is a multimillionaire. Many have several hundred million. None are hurting financially.

Those making their employees pay the price for their desire to make more money should be criminal."True, but that point of contention is not isolated to American professional football alone. If that stance should be validated (and I'm not stating that it should not be), there are millions more employers in this country who should be equally prosecuted. Questionable greed is not solely limited to an arena inhabited by billionaires.

[CCBoy]

Undoubtedly true. The players are at the disadvantage. But that has nothing to do with how they've negotiated. That disadvantage is a fact that has existed for years, ever since the league began expressly planning -- that is saving -- for a lockout. It is a fact that existed before the negotiations began. The course that the players chose, litigation, was -- and is -- the only avenue that had even a chance of altering the fundamental dynamic of an uneven playing field in terms of the negotiations. If that option fails, or was not pursued, the only real option the players will have is to accept the owners terms as presented. That's not a negotiation. Its a surrender. Which is why I take your criticism of the players as frankly a little silly. The course they've taken is the only one with even a remote chance of success.

And its a course that will be, in the end, costless. Even if the litigation fails, the owners won't lower their offer. As time goes on, the players will become increasingly disenchanted with their leadership, which will ultimately turn to anger, which will likely lead to surrender. The last thing the NFL wants to do is to turn the player's anger from their own leadership to the other side, which I suspect lowering the offer has a real potential to do. If the players get adequately ticked off at the league, we could actually see a loss of football for an extended period of time and ultimately everybody would get creamed. No, the owners won't lower their offer. The last thing you want to do when dealing with the guy who just killed a hostage is provoke him to a point where he's willing to kill ALL the hostages. Which leads me to the view that, when all is said and done, the players will do no worse than what the league was offering in March. Which makes their litigation gamble, even if unsuccessful, a smart roll of the dice.

Thank you DCDave, as it truely is a 'golden nugget' as to motive on the player's side. Like Hos, I hate the emotional attachments that I carry in my desire for resolution to arrive at our door, (a fan's). But your effort here has expanded understanding for either side of the issue camp, for knowing why the journey was taken.

It provides the motivation to pull the curtain back, when the 'great Oz' bellows to the travelers seeking their own gain in their trip. The why of how Smith was selected, is not revealed for all watching the unfolding of the Player's, and hence, Owner's posture through the rounds of negotiations and litigations. It is sound reasoning that a Trial Counsel to have been selected spearhead such an aggressive approach to maximize their own positions in what appears to be an approaching something of a 'trail of tears.'

As a fan, I now additionally, don't want the owners to proceed on a 'scorched earth' journey as well.

The simpleton side of this fan, would tend to side with a postured stance through preliminary stages, but discussions such as the participants on this provide, is more than a simple understanding of the complexity of issues being battered about, but indicative of the strengths of very Country and it's concepts.

On a Memorial Day weekend, I salute yours and other's participation, as it waters the very roots that our Service Members fight so valiantly to protect.
That is a system that peacefully allows the full watering of beliefs for both sides of an issue.

Althou this may serve to be an emotional provocation for many, and numerous juncture in discussion and road traveled by actual participants, but we have all been enriched by it. As your insights provide...

So, when do we get some practice and the NFL back on the road?

But here, a sincere Thank You, Sir!:starspin

[CCBoy]

True, but that point of contention is not isolated to American professional football alone. If that stance should be validated (and I'm not stating that it should not be), there are millions more employers in this country who should be equally prosecuted. Questionable greed is not solely limited to an arena inhabited by billionaires.

:) Sounds like something is going Postal here...(in concept, and I'm employed by the Postal Service).

[JIGGYFLY]

If you look at hearts, when you shoot the moon, you get all 26 points, thus getting none, and giving your opponents each 26. HOWEVER, if you fail by even 1 point, you get stuck with 25, while one of the other players takes 1.

I say this, because I think that concept of shooting the moon explains what Verdict had in mind. When I first read his OP, I felt kinda the same as what you have expressed. But Verdict is not saying that the players pushed for wonderful new benefits, merely that their "hand" doesn't have that final winner to get the 26th point, thus they will end up taking a much worse loss. Clearly the players felt that they had the hand to shoot, and going up until this last card, they were doing pretty good, TV Contracts lawsuit is going their way, Judge Nelson said everything they wanted. Right now, the question is whether they will have the courage to eat the queen of spades (go through with a full true forever so be it - decertification) or take their losses, and accept a new, less favorable CBA.

Back on point, to shoot the moon here means make a hard and fast go for it all and don't back down type attitude, and hope you have the cards to win it all.

Let's look at it from the point of if litigation had worked, or the 8th DCoA does support Judge Nelson. Then their shoot the moon strategy will have worked, because the owners will probably be back at the table with an offer very similar to the 2006 CBA, and plus the player may get damages awarded. Thus they would have shot the moon (using the hearts analogy) .

I can understand this analogy, I still don't think it fits but it has logic.

Anytime shoot for for the moon is usually used its to illustrate a party asking for something highly unreasonable or unatainable.

I don't think the players ever approached those thresholds and the owners by asking for a pay cut and longer working hours per say definitely meet that threshold.

[SilverStarCowboy]

Questionable greed is not solely limited to an arena inhabited by billionaires.


Yep, sad but true the same goes for all of us in some way in this world we live in.

While certainly some believe they are better or above the greed aspect of this life, the truth is that you get the Yin while taking the Yang right in the Bazooka...and that's not bubble gum and jokes.

:laugh2:

[gimmesix]

"There’s not a single, solitary owner suffering during this lockout. The lockout, remember, is being conducted because the owners want a larger profit margin. That’s a fancy way of saying they’re not making enough money.
Trust me, they aren’t flying commercial. And they aren’t staying at Best Western (http://topics.dallasnews.com/topic/Best_Western) hotels throughout the country.
But throughout the league, owners are docking their employees 10-25 percent of their salaries. The Lions just announced two-week furloughs. The Raiders want their employees to help sell tickets for a season no one knows will begin to stave off salary cuts.
Whatever.
Every NFL owner is a multimillionaire. Many have several hundred million. None are hurting financially.
Those making their employees pay the price for their desire to make more money should be criminal."

Umm ... these guys didn't get to be multimillionaires by being charitable.

Rather than them taking a loss that would barely dent their wallets, most of them would probably cut the livelihood of a mother with five infant mouths to feed without blinking an eye (unless it drew media attention).

Let's not pretend that just because these men own NFL teams, they are people looking out for anyone's best interests than their own. Again, that's how most of them got in position to become NFL owners.

[Verdict]

Stay with it Verdict. I'm a lawyer too, and you know what you're talking about.

For the rest of you, lawyers are trained to be able to represent either side. Their evaluation of tactics is objective.

:)


Thanks Angus. This thread is causing me to have deja vu, since I have very similar conversations with my own clients (on various other issues) on a daily basis. It is hard for a litigant (and some posters) to be able to put their passion for a position aside and look at an issue objectively.

[JIGGYFLY]

Thanks Angus. This thread is causing me to have deja vu, since I have very similar conversations with my own clients (on various other issues) on a daily basis. It is hard for a litigant (and some posters) to be able to put their passion for a position aside and look at an issue objectively.

Objectively :lmao2:

Talk about being condescending, there is nothing objective about accusing the players of shooting for the moon when they have not actually asked for anything.

So I take it you think everything the owners have asked for is perfectly reasonable?

[JBond]

I think you've got it backwards on who took what position. The owners' initial offer was a total shot for the moon.

You know those crazy owners. Guaranteeing more money for the players every year, year after year was just cruel. Mean evil owners. How dare they offer more money.

For some reason, some keep getting tripped up by the fact that the old contract is done and gone but insist on using it as the middle.

The fact is, the owners offered higher salary caps year after year over and above the 2009 cap.

The chump for the now non-existent union ran and wouldn't even consider it. There is no way the owners do not win this.

[Hostile]

Objectively :lmao2:

Talk about being condescending, there is nothing objective about accusing the players of shooting for the moon when they have not actually asked for anything.

So I take it you think everything the owners have asked for is perfectly reasonable?If he doesn't think so I will admit I do.

I think there are only 2 unreasonable things happening by either side. First the threats on the Draft are out of line. Second, both sides need to swallow pride and realize this is the golden goose they are killing.

In fact that second one is what makes all of this "reasonable."

Is it unreasonable to tell the players they are still going to make millions of dollars over their careers? Give me some of that kind of unreasonable.

Is it unreasonable to tell the owners that you want a higher cap? The owners are still going to make millions with a higher cap. Give me some of that kind of unreasonable.

I don't see one thing suggested by either side that is going to kill one side and make their lives a living hell with the exception of doing away with the Draft and having unlimited Free Agency which will kill the competitive balance of the league.

Everything else that either side is proposing can be lived with by both sides and everyone involved will make more money than most of us dream about. Give me that kind of unreasonable.

[JIGGYFLY]

If he doesn't think so I will admit I do.

I think there are only 2 unreasonable things happening by either side. First the threats on the Draft are out of line. Second, both sides need to swallow pride and realize this is the golden goose they are killing.

In fact that second one is what makes all of this "reasonable."

Is it unreasonable to tell the players they are still going to make millions of dollars over their careers? Give me some of that kind of unreasonable.

Is it unreasonable to tell the owners that you want a higher cap? The owners are still going to make millions with a higher cap. Give me some of that kind of unreasonable.

I don't see one thing suggested by either side that is going to kill one side and make their lives a living hell with the exception of doing away with the Draft and having unlimited Free Agency which will kill the competitive balance of the league.

Everything else that either side is proposing can be lived with by both sides and everyone involved will make more money than most of us dream about. Give me that kind of unreasonable.

So asking a person to work longer hours (18 game schedule) and to give back more money before revenue sharing is reasonable?

When have the players ever asked for a higher cap, have you missed all the times they said they are willing to work under there current mutually agreed contract.

This why you can never be considered unbiased, the players never asked for anything more than they already have, how is that an unreasonable tactic.

[Stautner]

So if the players were asking for the moon then what was the owners asking for? Milky way?

Remember, the owners are the owners - they are asking to keep a bigger share of what is theirs to begin with. In otherwords, the owners own the pie, and the players are trying to take a share of it while the owners are just trying to keep as much of the pie as they can.

And that's okay - that's the process in place. And, of course, the owners need the players, and they know it and that's why they have allowed the players to take such a big piece of the pie in the past. And that's why they are still willing to let them have a large piece of the pie - just not as big as the players are shooting for.

[theogt]

Remember, the owners are the owners - they are asking to keep a bigger share of what is theirs to begin with. In otherwords, the owners own the pie, and the players are trying to take a share of it while the owners are just trying to keep as much of the pie as they can.

And that's okay - that's the process in place. And, of course, the owners need the players, and they know it and that's why they have allowed the players to take such a big piece of the pie in the past. And that's why they are still willing to let them have a large piece of the pie - just not as big as the players are shooting for.The players own their services. The parties are negotiating for the players' services. What's on the table here is owned by the players.

[Stautner]

So asking a person to work longer hours (18 game schedule) and to give back more money before revenue sharing is reasonable?

When have the players ever asked for a higher cap, have you missed all the times they said they are willing to work under there current mutually agreed contract.

This why you can never be considered unbiased, the players never asked for anything more than they already have, how is that an unreasonable tactic.

Two things jumped out on this. First, it is my understanding that the 18 game season is no longer on teh table. Second, the players aren't giving back anything because they don't yet have anything. What they get is what is negotiated in a cba, and and without a cba there is nothing to give back. Of course it feels that way to the players (that they are giving back) since the owners are negotiating for a split that is more favorable to them than the last cba, and admitedly it is a tough road for the owners to negotiate down from a split they agreed to previously, but the reality is that the split set out in the last cba carried no guarantee of being continued after that cba expired.

[Hostile]

So asking a person to work longer hours (18 game schedule) and to give back more money before revenue sharing is reasonable?

When have the players ever asked for a higher cap, have you missed all the times they said they are willing to work under there current mutually agreed contract.

This why you can never be considered unbiased, the players never asked for anything more than they already have, how is that an unreasonable tactic.You're not paying attention. I didn't call that unreasonable. I said the only unreasonable idea is unfettered Free Agency and no Draft.

18 games is not unreasonable provided the players get a % raise. If their game checks amounted to $100k per game then their salaries ought to go up $200k. If it doesn't then I do see that as unreasonable.

I do think the players missed the boat in some of their requests, but I haven't said they are unreasonable just as the Owners are not unreasonable.

There is literally no excuse for a deal not to be done already. The litigation strategy was ignorant.

[dogberry]

Green Bay's ebidta has gone from $34 million (2006) to $10 million before last year's uncapped season.

I don't see the fairness in making North Texas' tax payers, license holders, and ticket buyers subsidize other teams. Green Bay and Green Bay's players should support themselves without taking from the new stadium in Arlington.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

You know those crazy owners. Guaranteeing more money for the players every year, year after year was just cruel. Mean evil owners. How dare they offer more money.

For some reason, some keep getting tripped up by the fact that the old contract is done and gone but insist on using it as the middle.

The fact is, the owners offered higher salary caps year after year over and above the 2009 cap.

The chump for the now non-existent union ran and wouldn't even consider it. There is no way the owners do not win this.


Yet the owners seem to want a guarantee on profits despite them not actually being the talent on the field. The same talent that takes 10 years off their lives by playing the game and can only do it until they are 35. At which point they go work at McDonalds or something(as Ive been told)

The owners only make $15M-$115M a year into their 80's? Sign me up

[CCBoy]

I get it, its your opinion that the players are not bargaining from a position of strength.

That has nothing to do with your analogy of them asking for the moon, which was biased and way off base.

The first posting dealt with a descriptive view of principals formating a process.

The later was applications as it related to a specific event, and thus, an applied analysis...but reaonable and very sound in it's presentation.

[CCBoy]

Yet the owners seem to want a guarantee on profits despite them not actually being the talent on the field. The same talent that takes 10 years off their lives by playing the game and can only do it until they are 35. At which point they go work at McDonalds or something(as Ive been told)

The owners only make $15M-$115M a year into their 80's? Sign me up

If issues were based solely on magnitude of total earnings, hey, become an owner....the problems presented involve roles of a employer and earnings of an employEE.

[CCBoy]

You're not paying attention. I didn't call that unreasonable. I said the only unreasonable idea is unfettered Free Agency and no Draft.

18 games is not unreasonable provided the players get a % raise. If their game checks amounted to $100k per game then their salaries ought to go up $200k. If it doesn't then I do see that as unreasonable.

I do think the players missed the boat in some of their requests, but I haven't said they are unreasonable just as the Owners are not unreasonable.

There is literally no excuse for a deal not to be done already. The litigation strategy was ignorant.

Earning potentials, which are very top shelf, are excellerating through the entire process. Try it the other way around, where there then is no overtime yet increased productivity are the directed changes...and yearly incomes depreciate to well below just a common decency concept of cost of living increase.

[CCBoy]

If he doesn't think so I will admit I do.

I think there are only 2 unreasonable things happening by either side. First the threats on the Draft are out of line. Second, both sides need to swallow pride and realize this is the golden goose they are killing.

In fact that second one is what makes all of this "reasonable."

Is it unreasonable to tell the players they are still going to make millions of dollars over their careers? Give me some of that kind of unreasonable.

Is it unreasonable to tell the owners that you want a higher cap? The owners are still going to make millions with a higher cap. Give me some of that kind of unreasonable.

I don't see one thing suggested by either side that is going to kill one side and make their lives a living hell with the exception of doing away with the Draft and having unlimited Free Agency which will kill the competitive balance of the league.

Everything else that either side is proposing can be lived with by both sides and everyone involved will make more money than most of us dream about. Give me that kind of unreasonable.

(coughing due to nature of considerations - only) There are reasons why the Supreme Court and legislatures have drawn a line in the sand as to specifcs of industry, one side is a 'true concept of business' and the other is where MLB started...and that was not a true business, but a SPORT.

As to specifics of application dealing with cap and draft issues, there is a reason why the NFL is far superior once the Championship game is played, as compared to the NBA, which much more strongly caters to the PLAYER. That is just the facts of bending the sport to cater to the vanity of that same player!

[JIGGYFLY]

Two things jumped out on this. First, it is my understanding that the 18 game season is no longer on teh table. Second, the players aren't giving back anything because they don't yet have anything. What they get is what is negotiated in a cba, and and without a cba there is nothing to give back. Of course it feels that way to the players (that they are giving back) since the owners are negotiating for a split that is more favorable to them than the last cba, and admitedly it is a tough road for the owners to negotiate down from a split they agreed to previously, but the reality is that the split set out in the last cba carried no guarantee of being continued after that cba expired.

Did you totally miss the what the OP said about the players shooting for the moon?

It does not matter if the 18 game season is off the table they initially asked for it yet the OP said the players asked for the moon, which makes no sense.