NFLPA Files Charges Against Owners

[Fiz]

So we don't have ALL the detailed hard figures. Why does that matter? We have enough for an approximate estimation.

what we know:

the bucs didn't sell out all their non premium tickets

they had to take a loss on a unspecified percentage to avoid blackouts

whelp, that's enough info for me to make, uh, an opinion on something?

And I'd saythe majority of the figures you posted are skewed or misrepresented BY the NFLPA.

specific examples please? even though everyone reading this knows you're too much of an ignorant weasel to actually answer that question

And if you believe the NFLPA is justified in requiring this information for a negotiation for compensation you're loony.

considering the league is declaring financial hardship as a reason to demand lower salaries and more work, yet they refuse to open their books, and the only one that did showed a profit, um.

I work for an incorporated partnership. Our stock is not publicly traded. If I emailed my HR department and said "Before I talk to you about my compensation I want to see our company's detailed fiscal records! Otherwise, I'll call the local media and local city board member and complain that I'm not being treated fairly!" I would be FIRED almost immediately. These demands are absurd.

okay, now create a situation that has a shred of bearing on the nfl labor negotiations.

[blackcatgrowl]

specific examples please? even though everyone reading this knows you're too much of an ignorant weasel to actually answer that question

Considering everything you posted in your "information" post is a rehash of what the NFLPA is saying here:

http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/Growth-of-Player-Salaries-Compared-to-Growth-of-NFL-Total-Revenue/

And here:

http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/Where-Dat--Where-Dat-Billion/

And here:

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Documents/LockoutFactSheets/2010%20CBA%20Adjustments%20in%20Uncapped%20Year%20For%20Website.pdf

... it's fairly evident that everything you've posted is all one-sided information. It would be like someone taking a brief from a lawyer in a civil case to the media and going "Oh LOOK LOOK, we're right, see... see... support our position, let us have what we want!!!" even though the information is presented in a way to reflect their best position, without any rebuttal or argument against it.

The fact is, these ball clubs are privately owned businesses (with the lone exception of Green Bay I believe). If they make more money, who the f**k cares? It's THEIR BUSINESS. If they want a particular profit margin, and think their employees are paid to much, then that's their f**king call. Who the f**k are you to argue against them? Who the f**k are the player's to think they have the right to demand more money, or even demand any level of compensation, when they are already paid extremely well?

You smart-assedly ask for a relevant example for the NFL, but I don't have to give one, because they are employees of the league, with union representation. The UNION is the problem here, as they are setting themselves up for a fight, and have been since DeMaurice Smith took over. For what purpose is anyone's guess, because they certainly aren't underpaid.

So stop sucking Smith's cock for a minute and figure out who delivers these games to you. Players come, players go. It's the TEAMS/Clubs, in their stadiums, setup and run by their staff, using their licensed logos and which is property of the owners which comprises the content of the NFL. Most people wouldn't give a flying piss if we had Steve Smith catching footballs, or Steve Pith catching them, as long as they were winning games.

Are you a lawyer for the NFLPA or something? Sheesh.

P.S. and edit: And one last point... if the NFL players won't negotiate, and are playing hard ball, and that stand causes the owners to force a lockout on them, then you'll find most people are going to side with the owners, and tell the NFLPA to get f**ked.

[Fiz]

Considering everything you posted in your "information" post is a rehash of what the NFLPA is saying here:

http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/Growth-of-Player-Salaries-Compared-to-Growth-of-NFL-Total-Revenue/

source from the BBC

And here:

http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/Where-Dat--Where-Dat-Billion/

those are official numbers that the nfl hasn't even rejected lol

And here:

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Documents/LockoutFactSheets/2010%20CBA%20Adjustments%20in%20Uncapped%20Year%20For%20Website.pdf

lol contract specifics are biased? what the f**k?

... it's fairly evident that everything you've posted is all one-sided information. It would be like someone taking a brief from a lawyer in a civil case to the media and going "Oh LOOK LOOK, we're right, see... see... support our position, let us have what we want!!!" even though the information is presented in a way to reflect their best position, without any rebuttal or argument against it.

well I'm sure the owners have released a massive brief that counters point for point all the specific details of the contracts those articles are taken from

The fact is, these ball clubs are privately owned businesses (with the lone exception of Green Bay I believe). If they make more money, who the f**k cares? It's THEIR BUSINESS. If they want a particular profit margin, and think their employees are paid to much, then that's their f**king call. Who the f**k are you to argue against them? Who the f**k are the player's to think they have the right to demand more money when they are already paid extremely well?

are you taking your ball and going home?

You smart-assedly ask for a relevant example for the NFL, but I don't have to give one, because they are employees of the league, with union representation. The UNION is the problem here, as they are setting themselves up for a fight, and have been since DeMaurice Smith took over. For what purpose is anyone's guess, because they certainly aren't underpaid.

ahahahaha yes it is the union's fault the owners are opting out of the CBA they signed before Demaurice Smith was elected.

So stop sucking Smith's cock for a minute and figure out who delivers these games to you. Players come, players go. It's the TEAMS/Clubs, in their stadiums, setup and run by their staff, using their licensed logos and which is property of the owners which comprises the content of the NFL. Most people wouldn't give a flying piss if we had Steve Smith catching footballs, or Steve Pith catching them, as long as they were winning games.

as evidenced by the huge success of the XFL, UFL, and Arena football league, all people care about is winning, not the quality of the play. Wait.

Are you a lawyer for the NFLPA or something? Sheesh.

are you one of those people that think there's risk involved in owning an NFL team?

I mean you don't know anything else, you're probably wrong about that too.

P.S. and edit: And one last point... if the NFL players won't negotiate, and are playing hard ball, and that stand causes the owners to force a lockout on them, then you'll find most people are going to side with the owners, and tell the NFLPA to get f**ked.

All the players want is what was agreed to by both parties in the last CBA.

you do not understand a single specific thing about this situation and it'd be better for everyone if you stopped posting, logged out, and never came back.

thanks in advance.

[The Saltman]

Fiz honestly how do you think this is going to turn out?

You optimistic about a season in 2011 or not really?

[Fiz]

Fiz honestly how do you think this is going to turn out?

You optimistic about a season in 2011 or not really?

The owners do not have a legal leg to stand on, and regardless of what idiots like blackcatgrowl seem to think. they're using an economic downturn that hasn't effected the league in the slightest (hurf blackouts hurf what's tv money precious?) as justification to get what they really want which is an 18 game schedule.

people that think the NFLPA is "taking a hard stance" don't know the timeline of events and if blackcatgrowl can't be assed to educated himself you should ban him for trolling.

I personally believe that because the nflpa has threatened to decert and sue in federal court, a case they would easily win, because the supreme court has rejected the nfl's request for anti-trust immunity. that's the highest court in the land ladies and gents.

so yeah probably a rookie cap, 18 game schedule, expanded rosters, and an extra bye.

the players get screwed, the owners will spin it as they've made major concessions, idiots will believe them because people are knee jerk against unions in this country, world will spin, records will become meaningless, defenses will continue to be neutered to save the players, nfl will turn into arena football, blackcatgrowl will look back on this in 30 years when receivers wear flags to pull and blame the players because he's literally a retarded gay baby.

[blackcatgrowl]

source from the BBC

LOL, so the NFLPA got their info from the BBC? lol, riiiiight...

those are official numbers that the nfl hasn't even rejected lol

We've not heard anything from the NFL because... and pay close attention to this...

They are trying to conduct private negotiations. So far, the NFLPA has expressed zero interest in doing so.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/02/nflpa-chief-threat-of-an-nfl-lockout-in-2011-is-a-14-on-scale-of-1-to-10/1

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the threat of the NFL locking out players after the 2010 season is at a "14" on a scale of 1 to 10.

Yeah, that was a year ago, when a deadline for a lockout wasn't looming. How can you make progress with someone when he's going to the media and lambasting your attempts to negotiate?

Ok... lets take it at face value... lets say the owners REALLY did ask for an 18% reduction to the salary cap. Is DeMaurice Smith really so naive as to think they expect to get that?

It's called "Ask Price, Bid Price". It's common tactic in negotiations. You start with something you know you won't get, then settle down on something both parties can compromise for. Smith, and the NFLPA is ignoring that whole process, and just running to the media crying foul.

lol contract specifics are biased? what the f**k?

Are you 5 years old? The information released doesn't tell the entire picture. You can take a fact, only show part of it, to try and make your point.

In this case, What that doesn't show, is what the average pay is.

All it shows is "Minimums". Oh... poor little NFL Players... they might only make $320,000, or 200K if they don't even play... awww... poor poor NFL players.

What they NEED to show is the AVERAGES... not MINIMUMS.

Seriously... gtfo is what I say to that.

well I'm sure the owners have released a massive brief that counters point for point all the specific details of the contracts those articles are taken from

Example? Oh, you're making assumptions. Seems you're good at that.

are you taking your ball and going home?

You gonna get your face off of Smith's lap?

hahahaha yes it is the union's fault the owners are opting out of the CBA they signed before Demaurice Smith was elected.

They opted out on May 28th, 2008. This is around the same time that banks started freezing loan applications because the housing bubble was starting to pop.

Now... if you're an owner of a luxury business, and make no mistake, that's what the NFL is... and you see a massive economic disaster in the making, are you going to sit there and continue your same contracts for payment if you have the LEGIT option to cancel them?

Hell... no...

as evidenced by the huge success of the XFL, UFL, and Arena football league, all people care about is winning, not the quality of the play. Wait.

Yes, because all those millions of college fans are clearly seeing better play from students?

are you one of those people that think there's risk involved in owning an NFL team?

LOL, are you saying there isn't?

I mean you don't know anything else, you're probably wrong about that too.

I love how you have the comprehension of a 10 year old, then spout how ignorant everyone else is on this topic. :hurray:

Go drink your chocolate milk like mommy told you to. You're way to young to know what the hell all this is about.

All the players want is what was agreed to by both parties in the last CBA.

Yes, because a major economic downturn shouldn't affect them at all. No... the NFL is a whole economic system unto itself. It can't POSSIBLY be affected by the economy.

Or so the NFLPA says. I'm sure they are glad you buy into that line.

you do not understand a single specific thing about this situation and it'd be better for everyone if you stopped posting, logged out, and never came back.

thanks in advance.

[KJDaniel31]

The owners do not have a legal leg to stand on, and regardless of what idiots like blackcatgrowl seem to think. they're using an economic downturn that hasn't effected the league in the slightest (hurf blackouts hurf what's tv money precious?) as justification to get what they really want which is an 18 game schedule.

people that think the NFLPA is "taking a hard stance" don't know the timeline of events and if blackcatgrowl can't be assed to educated himself you should ban him for trolling.

I personally believe that because the nflpa has threatened to decert and sue in federal court, a case they would easily win, because the supreme court has rejected the nfl's request for anti-trust immunity. that's the highest court in the land ladies and gents.

so yeah probably a rookie cap, 18 game schedule, expanded rosters, and an extra bye.

the players get screwed, the owners will spin it as they've made major concessions, idiots will believe them because people are knee jerk against unions in this country, world will spin, records will become meaningless, defenses will continue to be neutered to save the players, nfl will turn into arena football, blackcatgrowl will look back on this in 30 years when receivers wear flags to pull and blame the players because he's literally a retarded gay baby.

It's been my uneducated assumption that the Owners had the most control here, and in the end the players are going to give in to most of the demands of the owners if there is to be football. I haven't really chosen a side yet, due to my ignorance, but I'm interested in knowing the truth here. If you had to guess, who is gonna win this standoff?

[Fiz]

Depends on what you consider winning.

Next year the owners will have more games and will be paying the players less.

They didn't even have to do anything to win favor because idiots did it for them.

Sounds like a win to me if you're a fan of rich white dudes.

[blackcatgrowl]

Depends on what you consider winning.

Next year the owners will have more games and will be paying the players less.

They didn't even have to do anything to win favor because idiots did it for them.

Sounds like a win to me if you're a fan of rich white dudes.

Yes, damn those evil white bastards! How dare they expect to make a certain amount of money!! Who gives a poo that they produce the most exciting sport in the world, which is the most watched, and most popular sports content in the entire country. Who gives a fug that they promote ethnic diversity within the organization, and give minorities a chance at fame and fortune through their talents through their younger years and later on as coaches and assistants. fug all that. Those greedy bastards. They asked to have active rookies make a minimum of $254,000 a year instead of $310,000. Those greedy poo bags.

[KJDaniel31]

Depends on what you consider winning.

Next year the owners will have more games and will be paying the players less.

They didn't even have to do anything to win favor because idiots did it for them.

Sounds like a win to me if you're a fan of rich white dudes.

Well, I'm definately a fan of rich white dudes, naturally.

Win favor with whom? That part is confusing.

[Fiz]

Well, I'm definately a fan of rich white dudes, naturally.

Win favor with whom? That part is confusing.

The owners are shamelessly exploiting a real economic crisis to opt out of a contract they signed by lying about their personal finances to squeeze more labor out of the players at less pay. They've gone about this by essentially telling the players tough poo, take it or leave it.

And people are defending this.

[KJDaniel31]

The owners are shamelessly exploiting a real economic crisis to opt out of a contract they signed by lying about their personal finances to squeeze more labor out of the players at less pay. They've gone about this by essentially telling the players tough poo, take it or leave it.

And people are defending this.

Well, truth is if they can get away with it, it's probably smart business, given the fact that no matter how dispicable it is, the fans will come right back and spend money.

That says nothing of the moral side, however. My main problem is their refusal to show their books WHILE enjoying anti-trust exemption and using taxpayer money for various projects. I'm not a financial/law expert in the least, but something about that doesn't add up. I'm just curious if the real blame should fall on the voters who have given them the power to do these things.

[DR_DIGH]

After reading Fiz's and BlackCatGrowl's war of words :boxing_smiley:, I have to ask you a few questions. Do you want football next season? Do the owners and players think they'll make a lot of people mad and give them a reason to hold a grudge towards the NFL and it's owners and players? Is this good business to act like overpaid babies and not share (give in) a little so the sport isn't affected? It's human nature to want more but eventually, when all of the politics fade away, it's going to come down to both sides giving in. The players will give in more I believe because every year there are new prospects coming out of college and you either accept the terms that the owners give you and play by their rules, or you go out and give up your dreams of becoming an NFL athlete and go apply for a normal job like everyone else. I can't see the future NFL players giving up on declaring for the draft because the league minimum is dropping to an amount that is still considered a hefty sum of money by today's standards. I also can't see them applying for a normal job because they have to play 2 extra regular season games. Regardless of who's side you're on, in the end, the owners will win. Money talks.

[jtm]

Well, truth is if they can get away with it, it's probably smart business, given the fact that no matter how dispicable it is, the fans will come right back and spend money.

That says nothing of the moral side, however. My main problem is their refusal to show their books WHILE enjoying anti-trust exemption and using taxpayer money for various projects. I'm not a financial/law expert in the least, but something about that doesn't add up. I'm just curious if the real blame should fall on the voters who have given them the power to do these things.

They don't have complete anti-trust immunity. They were sued last year for violating anti-trust laws and lost (American Needle v. NFL). Every professional sports league has the same immunity.

Just because you have some sort of anti-trust immunity doesn't mean you have to show all of your employees your profitability. NFL is not a public company. As I have said many times, if the players don't like go play in Canada or Europe. Plenty of others will be willing to get paid millions to chase a leather ball around.