Yahoo Sports: Giants owner warns of chaos

[CCBoy]

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?

Excuse me, theo......

 

[DFWJC]

caps or minimums and perhaps no draft.

“The likely changes would be great for NFLPA lawyers, but not for players, teams, or, most importantly, fans,” Mara wrote.

This get's back to what I said a few days ago about the NFLPA not really representing the average player. I think the agents and lawyers are pulling many strings here.

The NFLPA is telling the players what they should do and not the other way around....with some exceptions.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

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?

:laugh2:

I can get behind that. I'm actually much more likely to attribute bad behaviour to stupidity than to evil. As you suggest, not sure whether I'm being charitable or not in doing so.

 

[Fletch]

The title misled me for a second. I thought Mara was basically pointing out that there would be chaos amongst fans of the NFL if there was no season due to the lockout. Now I can see that happening.

 

[CCBoy]

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).

Point, match, set...on that issue specific sequenced. And thank you, Sir for your contiued patience and diligence.:starspin

 

[CCBoy]

This get's back to what I said a few days ago about the NFLPA not really representing the average player. I think the agents and lawyers are pulling many strings here.

The NFLPA is telling the players what they should do and not the other way around....with some exceptions.

That is the very animal of a union based organization...and they seek only support by rank and file on issue and directions taken.

 

[kmd24]

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.

This is exactly my point. The rhetoric of each side is consistent with their position. The NFL contends that the union decertification is a sham and that the players walked away from negotiations. It is to their advantage to repeatedly and consistently talk about getting back to the negotiating table, and you can expect their rhetoric to be conciliatory.

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.

In general, I would like to see more positive rhetoric from the Players, but I fail to see how it would help them at the current juncture given the path they have chosen. In particular, the specific thing you wanted them to say would likely be hurtful.

I think most of us are dying for the news that an agreement has been reached, and talk of getting back to negotiating gives us hope. The fact that such talk is helpful to the NFL and hurtful to the Players is often lost on us.

My hope at this point is that the trial will go quickly and the outcome will be decisive, whatever that outcome may be. Although I don't think a trial is the best way to resolve the dispute, the Players have been bound and determined to go this route since negotiations started.

 

[SkinsFan28]

This is exactly my point. The rhetoric of each side is consistent with their position. The NFL contends that the union decertification is a sham and that the players walked away from negotiations. It is to their advantage to repeatedly and consistently talk about getting back to the negotiating table, and you can expect their rhetoric to be conciliatory.



In general, I would like to see more positive rhetoric from the Players, but I fail to see how it would help them at the current juncture given the path they have chosen. In particular, the specific thing you wanted them to say would likely be hurtful.

I think most of us are dying for the news that an agreement has been reached, and talk of getting back to negotiating gives us hope. The fact that such talk is helpful to the NFL and hurtful to the Players is often lost on us.

My hope at this point is that the trial will go quickly and the outcome will be decisive, whatever that outcome may be. Although I don't think a trial is the best way to resolve the dispute, the Players have been bound and determined to go this route since negotiations started.

I am not one who wants an agreement at any cost. I don't believe in capitulation by either side, but you consistently ignore that there are rhetorical choices made by the NFLPA that could be better said, and not harm their legal stature.

If they have boxed themselves into a corner where they feel they have to make aggressive assertions in order to win the legal battle, and that is their primary objective, then to say that the chaos that Mara speaks of is not going to happen is a two sided argument.

If they want to use the courts for the betterment of their position, fine, I understand that, but their words belie that. They make the choice to say, we, as a class, see the benefit of finding a fair settlement also; or owners you better understand what we are willing to do, that way we can get what we want. They make the choice to say: the March 11th deal was the worst deal ever in sports, or The owners deal was unacceptable to our union, and thus we chose to disclaim interest. Both say the basic point, one is a negative rhetoric, which makes bridge building harder, the other is a legally accurate rhetoric with no hyperbole to later have to account for.

Again, they chose this tactic, they can choose to begin a more positive tone (without endangering their legal stance) or they can choose not. I hope in time they choose to soften the rhetoric.

 

[kmd24]

I am not one who wants an agreement at any cost. I don't believe in capitulation by either side, but you consistently ignore that there are rhetorical choices made by the NFLPA that could be better said, and not harm their legal stature.

I am not ignoring it. I even said that in general, I would like to see more positive rhetoric from the Players. Nevertheless, I cannot see that it would in any way be beneficial to them at this point.

If they have boxed themselves into a corner where they feel they have to make aggressive assertions in order to win the legal battle, and that is their primary objective, then to say that the chaos that Mara speaks of is not going to happen is a two sided argument.

No, it is not a two-sided argument. They are saying that if the NFL doesn't at least come to the table with a "reasonable" offer, then the resulting situation could be bad for everyone involved. Their view of the NFL offers as unreasonable is critical to their argument that a collective bargaining environment does not exist and is the reason they are giving for decertifying.

If they want to use the courts for the betterment of their position, fine, I understand that, but their words belie that. They make the choice to say, we, as a class, see the benefit of finding a fair settlement also; or owners you better understand what we are willing to do, that way we can get what we want.

Atallah basically said both of these things. They are not inconsistent when you consider the context that the Players are arguing that the NFL offers in collective bargaining were unreasonable and did not represent good faith negotiations.

They make the choice to say: the March 11th deal was the worst deal ever in sports, or The owners deal was unacceptable to our union, and thus we chose to disclaim interest. Both say the basic point, one is a negative rhetoric, which makes bridge building harder, the other is a legally accurate rhetoric with no hyperbole to later have to account for.

What if claiming that the deal was the worst deal ever in sports is a key part of claiming that a collective bargaining environment doesn't exist? Here's a hint: it can't hurt. Just saying it is unacceptable doesn't preclude the possibility that the Players could make a counteroffer, hence preserving a collective bargaining environment.

Again, they chose this tactic, they can choose to begin a more positive tone (without endangering their legal stance) or they can choose not. I hope in time they choose to soften the rhetoric.

Do you think it's going to help in negotiations after the court case is resolved? The fact that the Players have chosen litigation has pretty much eliminated that possibility in my mind. Someone is going to end up getting the shaft, IMO, so I think your point about building bridges is moot.

 

[CCBoy]

I am not ignoring it. I even said that in general, I would like to see more positive rhetoric from the Players. Nevertheless, I cannot see that it would in any way be beneficial to them at this point.



No, it is not a two-sided argument. They are saying that if the NFL doesn't at least come to the table with a "reasonable" offer, then the resulting situation could be bad for everyone involved. Their view of the NFL offers as unreasonable is critical to their argument that a collective bargaining environment does not exist and is the reason they are giving for decertifying.



Atallah basically said both of these things. They are not inconsistent when you consider the context that the Players are arguing that the NFL offers in collective bargaining were unreasonable and did not represent good faith negotiations.



What if claiming that the deal was the worst deal ever in sports is a key part of claiming that a collective bargaining environment doesn't exist? Here's a hint: it can't hurt. Just saying it is unacceptable doesn't preclude the possibility that the Players could make a counteroffer, hence preserving a collective bargaining environment.



Do you think it's going to help in negotiations after the court case is resolved? The fact that the Players have chosen litigation has pretty much eliminated that possibility in my mind. Someone is going to end up getting the shaft, IMO, so I think your point about building bridges is moot.

Busting my neck to get up in the morning, to blow up my neighbor's porch with my grenade launcher....thank Allah, I'm a Gihad man. Yea, Allatolah was saying the same thing allright.

I was offered a scholarship to Dartmouth, but I chose the USAFA outside of C-Springs. But the negotiations have progressed to the point that the contention is now a difference of $500 M...not morales, ethics, or blood monies.

 

[SkinsFan28]

I am not ignoring it. I even said that in general, I would like to see more positive rhetoric from the Players. Nevertheless, I cannot see that it would in any way be beneficial to them at this point.



No, it is not a two-sided argument. They are saying that if the NFL doesn't at least come to the table with a "reasonable" offer, then the resulting situation could be bad for everyone involved. Their view of the NFL offers as unreasonable is critical to their argument that a collective bargaining environment does not exist and is the reason they are giving for decertifying.



Atallah basically said both of these things. They are not inconsistent when you consider the context that the Players are arguing that the NFL offers in collective bargaining were unreasonable and did not represent good faith negotiations.



What if claiming that the deal was the worst deal ever in sports is a key part of claiming that a collective bargaining environment doesn't exist? Here's a hint: it can't hurt. Just saying it is unacceptable doesn't preclude the possibility that the Players could make a counteroffer, hence preserving a collective bargaining environment.



Do you think it's going to help in negotiations after the court case is resolved? The fact that the Players have chosen litigation has pretty much eliminated that possibility in my mind. Someone is going to end up getting the shaft, IMO, so I think your point about building bridges is moot.

Someone is going to get the shaft only if both sides let this go to the end of litigation. Building bridges is never moot, especially when no matter what the outcome the two sides will have to work together again.

As to the rest, I strongly disagree, and unless the players only plan is to take this all the way to the end of the court case (and I think, even if it is) then they are wrong for the rhetorical choices and spins they are making.

 

[kmd24]

Someone is going to get the shaft only if both sides let this go to the end of litigation. Building bridges is never moot, especially when no matter what the outcome the two sides will have to work together again.

As to the rest, I strongly disagree, and unless the players only plan is to take this all the way to the end of the court case (and I think, even if it is) then they are wrong for the rhetorical choices and spins they are making.

Decertification is and always was an all-or-nothing gambit. The only way this will not go deep into litigation is if the trial becomes demonstrably one-sided. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

In this light, you shouldn't be surprised that the Players are doing everything they can - including inflammatory rhetoric that voices their disgust with the offers they've seen to date - to win at trial because losing will cost them dearly. Whether that is "wrong" is merely a value judgement on your part. Right or wrong, it is clearly a tactic that aligns with the arguments they have made and will make.

If you read the briefs and the rulings and then look at the actions of the league in hindsight, it becomes clear that the actions of the last few months were well orchestrated. For example, the teams voted to decertify last fall, well in advance of the beginning of negotiations. In retrospect, it seems that this was designed to combat the NFL's assertion that the decertification is a sham.

During the negotiations, the NFLPA went to great lengths to document in the press the lack of "reasonable" offers, in particular the offer of March 11. In fact, if you read the letter from the NFLPA executive committee in light of the decertification, it is evident that they are outlining the nonexistence of a collective bargaining environment.

They've been laying the groundwork for a court case for the better part of the last year, if not longer, and they know if they lose they are screwed. From the moment they decertified they were headed to court unless an enjoined lockout forced the NFL's hand.

It is naive to think that the owners are going to soften their stance in negotiations because of the rhetoric of the Players and their lawyers. Do you think they're going to say, "You were so polite in the press, here's $500MM back"?

The Players have laid and are continuing to lay the foundation for their court case because it is their only chance at this point. Given that, I think they are rational to do everything they can to win the case, including voicing their disgust over the negotiations.

I don't like it, but at least I see it for what it is.

 

[CCBoy]

Decertification is and always was an all-or-nothing gambit. The only way this will not go deep into litigation is if the trial becomes demonstrably one-sided. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

In this light, you shouldn't be surprised that the Players are doing everything they can - including inflammatory rhetoric that voices their disgust with the offers they've seen to date - to win at trial because losing will cost them dearly. Whether that is "wrong" is merely a value judgement on your part. Right or wrong, it is clearly a tactic that aligns with the arguments they have made and will make.

If you read the briefs and the rulings and then look at the actions of the league in hindsight, it becomes clear that the actions of the last few months were well orchestrated. For example, the teams voted to decertify last fall, well in advance of the beginning of negotiations. In retrospect, it seems that this was designed to combat the NFL's assertion that the decertification is a sham.

During the negotiations, the NFLPA went to great lengths to document in the press the lack of "reasonable" offers, in particular the offer of March 11. In fact, if you read the letter from the NFLPA executive committee in light of the decertification, it is evident that they are outlining the nonexistence of a collective bargaining environment.

They've been laying the groundwork for a court case for the better part of the last year, if not longer, and they know if they lose they are screwed. From the moment they decertified they were headed to court unless an enjoined lockout forced the NFL's hand.

It is naive to think that the owners are going to soften their stance in negotiations because of the rhetoric of the Players and their lawyers. Do you think they're going to say, "You were so polite in the press, here's $500MM back"?

The Players have laid and are continuing to lay the foundation for their court case because it is their only chance at this point. Given that, I think they are rational to do everything they can to win the case, including voicing their disgust over the negotiations.

I don't like it, but at least I see it for what it is.

How would a responsible parent handle a tantum of his children?

Much less, take care of the organization and support of their home as well?

On a philosophical bases, are you implying criminality in intent at the onset?

 

[burmafrd]

The moment they chose a lawyer to head the union they made the decision to go to court unless the owners gave them everything they wanted. That has been clear from day one.

Now as regards PR they have done a lousy job; but they have been consistent.

 

[Hoofbite]

he does have a point

just think, kansas city royal of the nfl

no chance at winning every year...would suck to be a fan

Wow. Would that really suck.

 

[burmafrd]

In the last 9 years every team in the NFL reached the playoffs except the Browns and they got close 3 years ago. Up to the last week I believe. You cannot say that about MLB.

 

[burmafrd]

There have been at least 6 teams that have not been in the MLB playoffs in the last 10 years. Only 1 NFL team (The browns and they got close in 2007)

 

[SkinsFan28]

...

I don't like it, but at least I see it for what it is.

I see it for what it is as well, which is why when some would argue that the lawsuits are a means to an end and that end is reaching a new CBA, I think they are not really understanding what all is going on. The lawyers at the root of this have every intention of fighting this tooth and nail and believe that court victories are the most important thing. If they felt otherwise they would use rhetoric that builds bridges, and sets the table for a player friendly CBA (please don't argue about the effect on the court case, because that only matters if a win in the court is more important than a negotiated win).

They aren't using positive rhetoric because their leaders have no intent of giving ground. Everything else, open the books, we want to play, worst deal ever, etc. is just smoke and mirrors

 

[JD_KaPow]

There have been at least 6 teams that have not been in the MLB playoffs in the last 10 years. Only 1 NFL team (The browns and they got close in 2007)

Impressive. Every single claim you make in this post is incorrect.

From 2001 to 2010, all but 5 MLB teams made the playoffs. Three NFL teams missed the playoffs over that period (the Browns are not one of those, as they made the playoffs in 2002).

Of course, we have to remember that MLB has 8 playoff spots (80 over a decade), while the NFL has 12 (120 over a decade). Also that it's a heckuva lot easier to luck into a playoff spot in the NFL, with only 16 games and more spots, than it is in MLB. Finally, three of those NFL teams haven't made it since 2002. Only one of the MLB teams is in that boat.

 

[kmd24]

I see it for what it is as well, which is why when some would argue that the lawsuits are a means to an end and that end is reaching a new CBA, I think they are not really understanding what all is going on. The lawyers at the root of this have every intention of fighting this tooth and nail and believe that court victories are the most important thing. If they felt otherwise they would use rhetoric that builds bridges, and sets the table for a player friendly CBA (please don't argue about the effect on the court case, because that only matters if a win in the court is more important than a negotiated win).

They aren't using positive rhetoric because their leaders have no intent of giving ground. Everything else, open the books, we want to play, worst deal ever, etc. is just smoke and mirrors

I agree with this 100%. At this point the Players aren't interested in a CBA unless it is agreed to under the duress of an impending judgement in their favor.