Yahoo Sports: Giants owner warns of chaos

[SaltwaterServr]

Now if you want to get into a list of absolute lies, look no further than the head of the NFLPA*.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3954562&postcount=572

 

[SkinsFan28]

Even if Mara's essay were full of half truth's and lies, which I am not saying I agree with, the fact remains that his words and rhetoric are concilliatory not aggressive. He does use hyperbole, although he does use the NFLPA's lawyers words. He seeks to open a dialog towards the end in sight of accomplishing a new CBA. This is the right strategy, and the right choice.

The NFLPA's spokesperson's response: I hope the other owners listened.
How I interpret the NFLPA's response: That's right owners, we still have a big stick and we will use it.

My preferred NFLPA's response: We all need to work together and find a fair solution to ensure those outcomes don't happen.

 

[kmd24]

My preferred NFLPA's response: We all need to work together and find a fair solution to ensure those outcomes don't happen.

That's pretty much what was said:

“The players are hopeful that the other owners read Mr. Mara’s piece,” Atallah said. “We agree that a long-term and fair solution is in everyone’s best interests.”

 

[SkinsFan28]

That's pretty much what was said:

I don't see where he mentions working together. Again, he says that the owners need to read it, and then says a fair deal is needed. I may be nitpicking, probably am, but rather than a statement of joint responsibility, I see a guy saying that a fair agreement can only come if the owners fear us.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Scare tactics. The quotes in the article are full of half-truths and outright lies.

How do you think his "outright lies" compare to those below?

FACT CHECK: The NFL is not suing anybody

http://nfllabor.com/2011/05/18/fact-...suing-anybody/

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith incorrectly stated four times in an 18-minute appearance on SiriusXM NFL Radio last night that the NFL has filed a lawsuit in connection with the current labor dispute.

Said Smith in the interview:

1.“This is the first league in the history of sports that has ever sued to not play their game.”
2.“When we reach a time or a moment in history where a professional sports league is suing to not play football, we are in a bad spot.”
3.“What do you think as a fan when you learn that the league that you write a check to, the teams that you have done nothing but cheer for years, are now suing to not play the game that we all love?”
4.“You are the first league in history to go to court to sue that people should not be able to enjoy the game that you put on.”
Smith’s comments echoed a similar statement he made last Friday on the Boomer & Carton show on WFAN radio in New York. “Can you think of a business in America that sues not to play,” Smith said.

FACT: The NFL did not file a lawsuit. The NFL is a defendant in a lawsuit financed by the NFLPA. What DID happen: On March 11, the NFL Players Association pushed away from the negotiating table and “disclaimed interest” in acting as a union. The players’ counsel then filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, shifting the playing field from the boardroom to the courtroom.

FACT: It would be better for everybody if we drop the lawsuits and get back to the bargaining table....

 

[CCBoy]

Here.

There are two outright lies.

1. "The league and individual clubs would likely be hit with a barrage of lawsuits." It is not likely that a barrage of lawsuits would be filed if a settlement is reached. In fact, there have only been a handful of lawsuits by the players against the NFL in the history of the NFL. If a settlement is reached and CBA is entered into as a result, any new lawsuits would be dismissed immediately. It is more likely than not that not one single lawsuit would be filed. Thus, to say it is "likely" that a barrage of lawsuits would follow is incorrect. I can only assume it was an intentionally misleading statement, which is a lie.

2. "We could end up with an unregulated system". This is also a lie. First, any system will have rules, even if the players ultimately won on the merits of the case and took that ruling to its utmost extreme. That is because antitrust law does not prohibit all restrictions; only unreasonable ones. Thus, certain restrictions would be upheld and some stricken. Second, the players are not asking to remove all regulations, or even most regulations. The players' offer, which could be accepted at any time by the owners, included a system of regulations virtually identical to the previous CBA system.

Not to mention the completely irrelevant notion of team revenue disparity. The players are not challenging revenue sharing. If the clubs chose to share revenue, they could do so.

Funny, I thought assuming a posture was either at attention, or like with a pair of books upon one's head that accentuates a majestic and artistic stroll...

 

[CCBoy]

Here's one.

Yep, sure enough, in most actions of a mob, such as a tar and feathering, it is all upon an agreed and measured standard uniform throughout....with a time piece's precision.:

 

[theogt]

How many lawsuits have been filed against the NFL just in the past three months? Is it wrong to say that more *might* follow? It's certainly possible, one would think. And in his opinion, it's likely. That doesn't make it a lie, just like your opinion that the appeals court was "unlikely" to grant a stay was not a lie, it was merely your opinion. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But he's certainly not lying.

There have been only two lawsuits that I'm aware. Other parties have attempted to join those lawsuits, but have not filed separate lawsuits. In the history of the NFL, there has never been a lawsuit filed directly after a CBA was entered into.

It may be his opinion that a "barrage" of lawsuits is likely. It's my opinion that he knows that is horse **** and it's a lie.

That part of the essay didn't address a new CBA, only a settlement of the Brady lawsuit.

The settlement of the Brady lawsuit necessarily includes a new CBA. You cannot separate the two.

Again, stating that it is a possibility is not a lie unless it is not possible. And it IS possible to have an "unregulated system."

It is not possible to have an unregulated system, UNLESS the owners choose to do so.

Asserting that something is possible doesn't mean that the opposite is not also possible. In a system that is unlike the previous CBA, there might not be the same level of revenue sharing or any revenue sharing at all, in which case the small-market teams could struggle.

That would be the owners choice. The clear implication here is that this is something that would be forced by the players, which is a half-truth at best and a lie at worst.

Frankly, when you said his essay was "full" of lies and half-truths, I was expecting a list of more than two or three things.

Frankly, I posted one single paragraph of the article and it had AT LEAST three lies and half-truths. Other paragraphs have them as well. The article is "full" of them.

 

[kmd24]

I don't see where he mentions working together. Again, he says that the owners need to read it, and then says a fair deal is needed. I may be nitpicking, probably am, but rather than a statement of joint responsibility, I see a guy saying that a fair agreement can only come if the owners fear us.

When you consider the fact that Atallah is the lawyer on a case that pretty much hinges on the claim that a collective bargaining environment no longer exists, I think you'll see that it is totally unreasonable for him to talk about "working together."

The Players, for better or worse, have taken the stance that the NFL is not committed to making a fair offer in negotiating. As a result, they are pretty much bound to refraining from negotiating short of what's been encouraged (ordered?) by the court. Otherwise, they'll be undermining arguments that they plan to make in front of a judge in a couple of weeks.

In the end, any agreement is going to come via negotiating, be it collective bargaining or a settlement of an anti-trust suit, and the terms of the agreement will get rolled into the next CBA. You know it, I know it, and the NFL and the Players know it. In the meantime, the Players are sticking to their nuclear option so as not to undermine their court case.

Mara's piece is merely laying out the worst case of this Armageddon scenario, which is what the Players have wanted the owners to see all along. Incidentally, I don't see it as pro-owner nor pro-player but some middle road to show how much worse things will be for most parties.

I don't think the Players really want a totally open market, but they are threatening it because it is the only real leverage they have left.

 

[theogt]

How do you think his "outright lies" compare to those below?

Two wrongs do make a right, I suppose.

 

[Hostile]

How do you think his "outright lies" compare to those below?

There is no freaking comparison. Demaurice Smith keeps getting shown to be an outright liar and few call him on it. Remember when he said the NFL has contributed nothing to retired players health plans? Right before they paid a yearly installment that has totaled over a billion dollars in the last decade. There was no retraction. There won't be on this either. he will continue to say these things and sheep will bleat.

 

[superpunk]

I like how his argument is basically "Our opponents are trying to hurt themselves, all we are doing is trying to spare them and give them what they really need"

 

[CCBoy]

Two wrongs do make a right, I suppose.

Or a chateau briand is comparable to brisquet with pesco....right? As you can take equal sized slices and enjoy.

 

[SkinsFan28]

When you consider the fact that Atallah is the lawyer on a case that pretty much hinges on the claim that a collective bargaining environment no longer exists, I think you'll see that it is totally unreasonable for him to talk about "working together."

The Players, for better or worse, have taken the stance that the NFL is not committed to making a fair offer in negotiating. As a result, they are pretty much bound to refraining from negotiating short of what's been encouraged (ordered?) by the court. Otherwise, they'll be undermining arguments that they plan to make in front of a judge in a couple of weeks.

In the end, any agreement is going to come via negotiating, be it collective bargaining or a settlement of an anti-trust suit, and the terms of the agreement will get rolled into the next CBA. You know it, I know it, and the NFL and the Players know it. In the meantime, the Players are sticking to their nuclear option so as not to undermine their court case.

Mara's piece is merely laying out the worst case of this Armageddon scenario, which is what the Players have wanted the owners to see all along. Incidentally, I don't see it as pro-owner nor pro-player but some middle road to show how much worse things will be for most parties.

I don't think the Players really want a totally open market, but they are threatening it because it is the only real leverage they have left.

I don't really agree that you can't use positive rhetoric instead of antagonistic rhetoric and maintain your legal stance. Case in point was Jeff Pash's interview on Sirius, asked about D Smith, he gave an entirely reasonable answer, that acknowledged the contentious nature of the discussions, but still gave complements to D Smith, and maintained the NFL's legal posture.

If you don't like the word "we" then perhaps I should have made this my initial statement "The Brady Class understands that for a fair resolution, both sides of this suit need to work together through the appropriate channels. "

 

[CCBoy]

I don't really agree that you can't use positive rhetoric instead of antagonistic rhetoric and maintain your legal stance. Case in point was Jeff Pash's interview on Sirius, asked about D Smith, he gave an entirely reasonable answer, that acknowledged the contentious nature of the discussions, but still gave complements to D Smith, and maintained the NFL's legal posture.

If you don't like the word "we" then perhaps I should have made this my initial statement "The Brady Class understands that for a fair resolution, both sides of this suit need to work together through the appropriate channels. "

Skinsfan, your posts are such a pleasure to have about this site....:

 

[Hostile]

I like how his argument is basically "Our opponents are trying to hurt themselves, all we are doing is trying to spare them and give them what they really need"

The sad thing is, he is right and way too many people refuse to see it.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Two wrongs do make a right, I suppose.

Fair enough. But I think you're being unduly charitable to Mr. Smith. As Hos suggests, there's really no comparison in the degree of wrong.

Smith's comments are outright lies. Nothing true about them.

Certain of Mara's statements -- specifically, the one you point to regarding the NFL's exposure to lawsuits even in the event of a settlement -- are only "half-truths" (to use your words).

They're half true because, as I think you'll agree, a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, without a corresponding CBA, would expose the league to the risk that players not party to the litigation (or the SSA) could attack the terms of the SSA on the basis that it enshrines practices that, without the shield provided to a CBA under the non-statutory labor exemption, would continue to constitute violations of antitrust law. Of course, we both know that the owners would never agree to an SSA without at the same time causing the players to recertify as a union and enter into a CBA mirroring the provisions of the SSA. That's what makes his statement only half true.

But at least Mara can provide some justification for the half-truth: after all, there's no guarantee that, even if the NFL could get the named plaintiffs to settle, the players as a whole would be prepared to recertify (unless, of course, you agree with what the NFL has been saying all along: that the decertification was a sham and that the players continue to act as a union).

 

[kmd24]

I don't really agree that you can't use positive rhetoric instead of antagonistic rhetoric and maintain your legal stance. Case in point was Jeff Pash's interview on Sirius, asked about D Smith, he gave an entirely reasonable answer, that acknowledged the contentious nature of the discussions, but still gave complements to D Smith, and maintained the NFL's legal posture.

If you don't like the word "we" then perhaps I should have made this my initial statement "The Brady Class understands that for a fair resolution, both sides of this suit need to work together through the appropriate channels. "

Jeff Pash doesn't have to keep up the facade of a breakdown in collective bargaining.

If the Players acknowledge that they bear some responsibility for the breakdown in collective bargaining, you can be sure that the NFL's lawyers will use that in court to undermine the argument that the Players' lawyers are sure to make. You can merely look at the NFL's attack on the decertification of the union to see that the NFL is already using player quotes from the media to attack the Players' position.

Saying the sort of thing you are wishing for can do nothing but undermine the Players' position in a court case they seem determined to see through. For that reason, I think it is an irrational desire to have.

I'd like to see this thing resolved as soon as possible and would love to see real negotiation ASAP, but the reality is that there won't be any real "working together" until after the appeal gets started.

 

[SkinsFan28]

Jeff Pash doesn't have to keep up the facade of a breakdown in collective bargaining.

If the Players acknowledge that they bear some responsibility for the breakdown in collective bargaining, you can be sure that the NFL's lawyers will use that in court to undermine the argument that the Players' lawyers are sure to make. You can merely look at the NFL's attack on the decertification of the union to see that the NFL is already using player quotes from the media to attack the Players' position.

Saying the sort of thing you are wishing for can do nothing but undermine the Players' position in a court case they seem determined to see through. For that reason, I think it is an irrational desire to have.

I'd like to see this thing resolved as soon as possible and would love to see real negotiation ASAP, but the reality is that there won't be any real "working together" until after the appeal gets started.

The NFL certainly has to keep it's foot out of it's mouth. Of course, since they haven't completely changed their stature overnight, while still maintaining the right to act in a nearly similar stature, maybe it is easier for him to do. But if Pash, had said something rhetorically aggressive, ie, "the Brady class is an impotent collection of players who don't represent all the players, we would love to discuss the concepts with any players who actually care about the game". He would have off-handedly acknowledged that the NFLPA is no longer the union for the players, and thus weakened his legal position. Just because the NFLPA's decisions have made positive rhetoric more difficult for them DOES NOT mean that they have any less to gain from making those type of statements.

 

[theogt]

Fair enough. But I think you're being unduly charitable to Mr. Smith. As Hos suggests, there's really no comparison in the degree of wrong.

Smith's comments are outright lies. Nothing true about them.

Certain of Mara's statements -- specifically, the one you point to regarding the NFL's exposure to lawsuits even in the event of a settlement -- are only "half-truths" (to use your words).

They're half true because, as I think you'll agree, a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, without a corresponding CBA, would expose the league to the risk that players not party to the litigation (or the SSA) could attack the terms of the SSA on the basis that it enshrines practices that, without the shield provided to a CBA under the non-statutory labor exemption, would continue to constitute violations of antitrust law. Of course, we both know that the owners would never agree to an SSA without at the same time causing the players to recertify as a union and enter into a CBA mirroring the provisions of the SSA. That's what makes his statement only half true.

But at least Mara can provide some justification for the half-truth: after all, there's no guarantee that, even if the NFL could get the named plaintiffs to settle, the players as a whole would be prepared to recertify (unless, of course, you agree with what the NFL has been saying all along: that the decertification was a sham and that the players continue to act as a union).

I'm not sure Smith was lying. I think he may just be an idiot and actually thought the league was suing.

How's that for being charitable to him?