Negotiation Tactics

[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 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

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

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.