Hillenmeyer admits to "PR move"

[Mr. Scot]

PFT: Players refused financial info for PR reasons

Former Bears linebacker and union rep Hunter Hillenmeyer (left) has been writing columns for NBCChicago.com regarding the players’ perspective on the current labor dispute.

In his latest, Hillenmeyer, who was involved in the negotiations that fell apart 22 days ago, admits that the players refused the league’s offer of limited financial information for one reason only — P.R.

“It’s true, the NFL did offer some financial info towards the end of mediation,” Hillenmeyer writes. “We rejected it, not because nothing is better than something, which it is not, but because the perception would then be that we got what we needed.”

In other words, "we asked for financial info, and when they gave it to us we turned it down just to try and make them look bad" :nonod:

Florio's analysis is that the info offered wouldn't have been good enough anyway. Still, I think this makes the players look bad (and there's been a lot of that lately).

[teeray]

I this point it is prett clear that the players did not negotiate in good faith IMO. Isn't the court ruling this week?

[Mr. Scot]

Court ruling is on the 6th.

[Jackofalltrades]

April 6 is a HUGE date, hopefully it forces an agreement in the near future. I'm sick of draft talk and would love to see what we do in FA.

[Panthercougar68]

Wow honestly didn't a few people on the huddle say this was a PR thing from the start and for this exact reason?

[Icege]

I took his comments more as there was some information offered, but it was not the information that they were asking for.

[Mr. Scot]

Wow honestly didn't a few people on the huddle say this was a PR thing from the start and for this exact reason?

They may have. I don't remember.

I know a lot of folks were of the opinion that the NFLPA was not bargaining in good faith.

[Mr. Scot]

I took his comments more as there was some information offered, but it was not the information that they were asking for.

What they asked for was impossible to produce inthe time frame given.

I've begun to believe that De Smith wanted this to go to court all along. Lawyers tend to think that's how you best settle things.

They're counting on the courts giving them a better settlement than then NFL would have. They may be right, but they may not.

[teeray]

Huddle is always ahead of the rest of the world. :thumbsup:

[teeray]

What they asked for was impossible to produce inthe time frame given.

I've begun to believe that De Smith wanted this to go to court all along. Lawyers tend to think that's how you best settle things.

They're counting on the courts giving them a better settlement than then NFL would have. They may be right, but they may not.

Not to mention completely unecessary. They requested 10 years bc they knew there was no way rhat would ever be agreed upon. It was a PR move for political cover to decertify.

[jtnc]

April 6 is a HUGE date, hopefully it forces an agreement in the near future. I'm sick of draft talk and would love to see what we do in FA.

Schefter said that the ruling wouldn't be until mid April.

[Mr. Scot]

Here's a scenario:

Suppose the courts give the players an unbelievably favorable settlement, one the owners look at and say "there's no way we can make that work".

What's to stop them from, as a group, saying "we're getting out of this business because it would be impossible to turn a profit under these conditions".

They all have other business concerns, and you can't force somebody to run a particular business.

That's obviously a pretty extreme scenario, but is it conceivable? I wonder...

[Rhys]

PFT: Players refused financial info for PR reasons

In other words, "we asked for financial info, and when they gave it to us we turned it down just to try and make them look bad" :nonod:

Florio's analysis is that the info offered wouldn't have been good enough anyway. Still, I think this makes the players look bad (and there's been a lot of that lately).

That's speculation at best, and your summation seeks to oversimplify it.

The players wanted near full financial disclosure, the owners offered them partial disclosure at the VERY END of the mediation, had they accepted, the public would have perceived the players got one of their key demands and therefore would likely have felt as though they were at fault for an agreement not being reached. Who's to say that the owners attempt at giving them financial information wasn't a PR stunt as well?

You could speculate, in the same way you have, that the owners gave the players partial disclosure, knowing that it wasn't enough for them to have an informed understanding of the NFL's finances and breakdown, just so they could claim to the media they gave them what they wanted and the mediation still broke down.

PR is being played on both sides, and you can make assumptions all you want but this has been mostly private for a reason. Both sides are filthy rich and don't want anyone to know the true extent of their finances.

[Rhys]

Here's a scenario:

Suppose the courts give the players an unbelievably favorable settlement, one the owners look at and say "there's no way we can make that work".

What's to stop them from, as a group, saying "we're getting out of this business because it would be impossible to turn a profit under these conditions".

They all have other business concerns, and you can't force somebody to run a particular business.

That's obviously a pretty extreme scenario, but is it conceivable? I wonder...

Let them, I'm sure we could find 32 old rich greedy white men to fills their spots.