Negotiation Tactics

[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

 

[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.