This Union should be broken

[Wood]

and I don't say that lightly because unions are major reason for improved working conditions for many many americans. But this deal with the owners and players reminds alot of a specific case in my own field (RN). About a year ago a certain Nursing Union walked out of Hospital after failed negotiations for higher pay and demanded continued college education paid for them and their families. Now let me first say...nursing is not first thing I have done..and it is by far the most demanding job I have ever had mentally and physically. But lets put this in perspective. The nurses that went on strike - 1/3 of the nurses made over 110,000 dollars for 2009 (top 5 in the country for pay scale). It was purely greed and nurses around the country had little sympathy for the striking nurses (this would explain why 1,500 nurses showed up at that hospital to gladly take care of the patients and were flown in from all across the country). The non striking nurses mostly agreed that this nursing union should be broken when its greed gets too far out of balance. Back to football...this out of balance is similar to those nurses who went on strike who were some of the highest paid nurses in country. Nobody wants it to get to this point...but its clear the union must be broken even if it means no football for 2011 and a shift in public sentiment....the game will recover...it has too much goodwill with fans not too. But the Owners should dig in...loss billions and reestablish the proper balance between ownership and the workers.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Great points all around.

I will miss Pro football, but to fix this situation, I would be willing to miss a year.

"Cutting off your nose to spite your face" in a sense.

 

[RS12]

Deeply flawed arguement. The owners forced the action upon the NFLPA not vice versa. All they doing is fighting for what they already had. Wouldnt you, or would you just hand money over because somebody told you too?

 

[speedkilz88]

Deeply flawed arguement. The owners forced the action upon the NFLPA not vice versa. All they doing is fighting for what they already had. Wouldnt you, or would you just hand money over because somebody told you too?

That's exactly what you're expecting the owners to do.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Owners seem to be giving a lot more than the players at this time. Owners even put the 18 games away temporarily. Players are getting more than ever it seems also, they just want more.

 

[TheDallasDon]

Can someone catch me up on all the lockout stuff???

I've been working like crazy and haven't had time to watch or read anything on it

Thanks

 

[Wood]

Deeply flawed arguement. The owners forced the action upon the NFLPA not vice versa. All they doing is fighting for what they already had. Wouldnt you, or would you just hand money over because somebody told you too?

its actually similar. The players would get more money in 2011 than in 2010 while we are in period where owners margins have been trending down just like the hospital margins were. And I am saying this from an angle of a nurse...but we(nurses) don't bear the burden of building the hospital or be on the line for the debt to build it out. If it fails...we walk away clean and just get job at another hospital...thats why its unreasonable for the worker to share in a high percentage of the "goodwill" while sharing none of the debt burden.

 

[Hoofbite]

Deeply flawed arguement. The owners forced the action upon the NFLPA not vice versa. All they doing is fighting for what they already had. Wouldnt you, or would you just hand money over because somebody told you too?

Like anyone will be writing checks back to the NFL teams.

 

[DeaconBlues]

and I don't say that lightly because unions are major reason for improved working conditions for many many americans. But this deal with the owners and players reminds alot of a specific case in my own field (RN). About a year ago a certain Nursing Union walked out of Hospital after failed negotiations for higher pay and demanded continued college education paid for them and their families. Now let me first say...nursing is not first thing I have done..and it is by far the most demanding job I have ever had mentally and physically. But lets put this in perspective. The nurses that went on strike - 1/3 of the nurses made over 110,000 dollars for 2009 (top 5 in the country for pay scale). It was purely greed and nurses around the country had little sympathy for the striking nurses (this would explain why 1,500 nurses showed up at that hospital to gladly take care of the patients and were flown in from all across the country). The non striking nurses mostly agreed that this nursing union should be broken when its greed gets too far out of balance. Back to football...this out of balance is similar to those nurses who went on strike who were some of the highest paid nurses in country. Nobody wants it to get to this point...but its clear the union must be broken even if it means no football for 2011 and a shift in public sentiment....the game will recover...it has too much goodwill with fans not too. But the Owners should dig in...loss billions and reestablish the proper balance between ownership and the workers.

Except, that without a union, the owners would need to comply with anti-trust laws. No draft. No tags. Guaranteed contracts.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Can someone catch me up on all the lockout stuff???

I've been working like crazy and haven't had time to watch or read anything on it

Thanks

Here is the cliff notes version.

The players union and the owners have been negotiating with a federal mediator. The deadline for the CBA to expired was extended one week in hopes of finalizing a new deal.

No deal happened, and the players union decertified before the CBA expired in order for 10 players to sue the NFL for antitrust violations. These 10 players included Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees, along with one rookie, Von Miller of Texas A&M.

The owners responed by locking the players out. Thus, no free agency, trades, signings, and no team contact with any players. The only thing that can go forward is the draft.


So that is where we are in a condensed cliff notes version.

 

[DallasEast]

Here is the cliff notes version.

The players union and the owners have been negotiating with a federal mediator. The deadline for the CBA to expired was extended one week in hopes of finalizing a new deal.

No deal happened, and the players union decertified before the CBA extension expired, when there was a high probability that the owners would institute another extension to keep both parties at the bargaining table, in order for 10 players to sue the NFL for antitrust violations. These 10 players included Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees, along with one rookie, Von Miller of Texas A&M.

The owners responed by locking the players out. Thus, no free agency, trades, signings, and no team contact with any players. The only thing that can go forward is the draft.

So that is where we are in a condensed cliff notes version.

Fixed.

 

[casmith07]

Except, that without a union, the owners would need to comply with anti-trust laws. No draft. No tags. Guaranteed contracts.

Not true. The draft is opt-in, and no contract is ever guaranteed. That's what termination conditions are for. The tags need to go away regardless.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

They don't have to sign and agree with being franchised.

 

[Sandyf]

A deeply flawed argument for the owners.

1. The owners opted out of an agreement that they originally agreed.

2. No player gets more money in 2011 than 2010 unless the owner agrees to pay said player more. Doesn't matter if the revenues go up or not.

3. Owners are asking that the players take 18 percent less toward the salary cap while showing more profit than ever. By reducing the salary cap then owners will have to manage the dollars they pay for the highest paid players or they will not fill out the roster.

4. Players have remained steadfast on just keeping the current contract in place, i.e. if profits go up then salary cap per team goes up. It is the owners that wanted to change the current contract.

5. Current CBA did need to change on both sides especially when it came to health, safety and retirees benefits. (Name the profession where if you were in it, it reduces the average life span by 18 YEARS). Those are just plain facts.

6. The union is NO MORE as of today and cannot be for at least a year. So effectively it is broken. The players are forming a business association which if partnered with the NFL then this item about opening the books will not ever be an issue again because in a business partnership, which this would be come, you must open up all your books that partain to the business, i.e. football operations in total.

7. The owners and players are a very unique business and any profession sport is. It is not like RN or attorneys or mine workers. It is and will always be driven by the product on the field. Would you rather see Peyton Manning play a game at QB or Alex Smith at QB. How would the TV rating be for a game last year with Alex Smith against Ryan Fitzpatrick verse Aaron Rodgers against Tony Romo.

8. I am not for either side because I believe both sides are GREEDY. The owners are more like AIG in which I believe we all know how they screwed the little guy, i.e. fans, and the players are more like your RN union where it was nothing about anything other than more money.

Fortunately or not, we all are culprits in allowing money to rule everything. Everyone wants more to get more. There is nothing fair about it for anyone. If things were fair, then we wouldn't have homeless, everyone would receive the best medical solutions, congress would actually be up there doing what is best for this country not for their pocketbooks or their affiliated party, and the world would be a better place. Maybe it is just a human thing just to be greed. GOD help us all!

 

[Oh_Canada]

Yes the owners are going broke and that is why they are dumping teams like Blockbuster shares.
I think the players should remain de-certified in order to go to a true free market and pay what that market bares. I'd love to see how these poor owners who are barely making ends meet will act once they don't have any restrictions on salary. Something tells me not good, and they will be begging the players to unionize again so they can collectively bargain and bring back a salary cap to save them from there greedy 'selves.

 

[NinePointOh]

They don't have to sign and agree with being franchised.

They haven't signed. There is no CBA. Yet multiple players currently have a franchise tag on them, and the other owners have no intention of violating it. The players are seeking an injunction against (among other things) the continuation of the franchise tag policy beyond the agreed-upon time period.

 

[NewJCowboy]

A deeply flawed argument for the owners.

1. The owners opted out of an agreement that they originally agreed.

2. No player gets more money in 2011 than 2010 unless the owner agrees to pay said player more. Doesn't matter if the revenues go up or not.

3. Owners are asking that the players take 18 percent less toward the salary cap while showing more profit than ever. By reducing the salary cap then owners will have to manage the dollars they pay for the highest paid players or they will not fill out the roster.

4. Players have remained steadfast on just keeping the current contract in place, i.e. if profits go up then salary cap per team goes up. It is the owners that wanted to change the current contract.

5. Current CBA did need to change on both sides especially when it came to health, safety and retirees benefits. (Name the profession where if you were in it, it reduces the average life span by 18 YEARS). Those are just plain facts.

6. The union is NO MORE as of today and cannot be for at least a year. So effectively it is broken. The players are forming a business association which if partnered with the NFL then this item about opening the books will not ever be an issue again because in a business partnership, which this would be come, you must open up all your books that partain to the business, i.e. football operations in total.

7. The owners and players are a very unique business and any profession sport is. It is not like RN or attorneys or mine workers. It is and will always be driven by the product on the field. Would you rather see Peyton Manning play a game at QB or Alex Smith at QB. How would the TV rating be for a game last year with Alex Smith against Ryan Fitzpatrick verse Aaron Rodgers against Tony Romo.

8. I am not for either side because I believe both sides are GREEDY. The owners are more like AIG in which I believe we all know how they screwed the little guy, i.e. fans, and the players are more like your RN union where it was nothing about anything other than more money.

Fortunately or not, we all are culprits in allowing money to rule everything. Everyone wants more to get more. There is nothing fair about it for anyone. If things were fair, then we wouldn't have homeless, everyone would receive the best medical solutions, congress would actually be up there doing what is best for this country not for their pocketbooks or their affiliated party, and the world would be a better place. Maybe it is just a human thing just to be greed. GOD help us all!

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Sandy,

The CBA expired. They had the option to opt out, that both sides agreed was fair.

Partners help pay the bills. If Manning or Brady is willing to help fund the business than sure open up the books, but that is not the case at all.

 

[DeaconBlues]

Not true. The draft is opt-in, and no contract is ever guaranteed. That's what termination conditions are for. The tags need to go away regardless.

The draft is not opt in. It is a restraint of trade, only legal if agreed upon by labor agreement. Otherwise, it is an anti-trust violation. One of the complaints filed by Manning et. al. seeks to declare the April draft as illegal due to the lack of an agreement. This is why Miller was added as a party - they need someone who could be "injured" by the holding of the draft.

NFL contracts are non-guaranteed due to the labor agreement. No agreement, then contracts are usually guaranteed unless agreed to by both parties.

 

[Wood]

A deeply flawed argument for the owners.

1. The owners opted out of an agreement that they originally agreed.

2. No player gets more money in 2011 than 2010 unless the owner agrees to pay said player more. Doesn't matter if the revenues go up or not.

3. Owners are asking that the players take 18 percent less toward the salary cap while showing more profit than ever. By reducing the salary cap then owners will have to manage the dollars they pay for the highest paid players or they will not fill out the roster.

4. Players have remained steadfast on just keeping the current contract in place, i.e. if profits go up then salary cap per team goes up. It is the owners that wanted to change the current contract.

5. Current CBA did need to change on both sides especially when it came to health, safety and retirees benefits. (Name the profession where if you were in it, it reduces the average life span by 18 YEARS). Those are just plain facts.

6. The union is NO MORE as of today and cannot be for at least a year. So effectively it is broken. The players are forming a business association which if partnered with the NFL then this item about opening the books will not ever be an issue again because in a business partnership, which this would be come, you must open up all your books that partain to the business, i.e. football operations in total.

7. The owners and players are a very unique business and any profession sport is. It is not like RN or attorneys or mine workers. It is and will always be driven by the product on the field. Would you rather see Peyton Manning play a game at QB or Alex Smith at QB. How would the TV rating be for a game last year with Alex Smith against Ryan Fitzpatrick verse Aaron Rodgers against Tony Romo.

8. I am not for either side because I believe both sides are GREEDY. The owners are more like AIG in which I believe we all know how they screwed the little guy, i.e. fans, and the players are more like your RN union where it was nothing about anything other than more money.

Fortunately or not, we all are culprits in allowing money to rule everything. Everyone wants more to get more. There is nothing fair about it for anyone. If things were fair, then we wouldn't have homeless, everyone would receive the best medical solutions, congress would actually be up there doing what is best for this country not for their pocketbooks or their affiliated party, and the world would be a better place. Maybe it is just a human thing just to be greed. GOD help us all!

Thats just a flat out lie. Nobody knows if the owners profits are up. It said revenue is up but in all likelyhood the cost increases have accelerated faster than revenue increases (thus a lower profit margin) which the owners say is occurring. If we were to open up Jerry Jones books (dallas cowboys) you would probably see margins are less than they were pre-stadium build out. For those who dont really get involved in finances...Revenue is pure sales that come thru the door (Ticket prices, TV Revenue, etc.) Cost is players Salary, taxes, interest on debt for stadium, advertising. Revenue (Sales) minus Cost (COGS) = Profit/Income (often referred to as profit margin because margin looks at % increase/decrease). The players salaries I believe already represent 54% of owners Revenue...so you can see a stadium build-out (which needed to occur because NFL stadium infrastructure were falling apart) the margins were quickly gobbled up.