Negotiation Tactics

[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

 

[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 exactly

Well, 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 lawyer

Or 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.